Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84737 

CHIP redetermination who are 

determined eligible for a QHP or a BHP. 

(ii) Total number of individuals who 

apply for coverage due to a Medicaid/ 

CHIP redetermination who are 

determined eligible for a QHP or BHP, 

and who make a QHP plan selection or 

are enrolled in a BHP. 

(e) Severability. Any provision of this 

section held to be invalid or 

unenforceable by its terms, or as applied 

to any person or circumstance, or stayed 

pending further State action, shall be 

severable from this section and shall not 

affect the remainder thereof or the 

application of the provision to persons 

not similarly situated or to dissimilar 

circumstances. 

§ 435.928 Reduction in FMAP for failure to 

submit certain data. 

(a) Basis. This section implements 

section 1902(tt)(2)(A) of the Social 

Security Act. 

(b) Application of the FMAP 

reduction. (1) FMAP means the Statespecific Federal medical assistance 

percentage as defined in the first 

sentence of section 1905(b) of the Act. 

(2) If CMS finds that, for a fiscal 

quarter in the period beginning on July 

1, 2023, and ending on June 30, 2024, 

the State was noncompliant with the 

requirements of § 435.927, CMS will 

reduce the State’s Federal medical 

assistance percentage (FMAP) for that 

fiscal quarter as described in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section. 

(3) A State is noncompliant in a fiscal 

quarter if it has failed to comply with 

the reporting requirements described in 

§ 435.927 for one or more months of the 

quarter. 

(4) The FMAP reduction under 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section will 

equal the product of 0.25 percentage 

points and the number of the fiscal 

quarters during the period from July 1, 

2023, through June 30, 2024, in which 

the State is noncompliant with the 

reporting requirements described in 

§ 435.927. When States are 

noncompliant in multiple quarters 

during that period, the FMAP reduction 

will increase by 0.25 percentage points 

for each successive quarter of 

noncompliance, even if nonconsecutive, 

but in no case will the reduction for any 

single quarter exceed 1 percentage 

point. 

(c) Severability. Any provision of this 

section held to be invalid or 

unenforceable by its terms, or as applied 

to any person or circumstance, or stayed 

pending further State action, shall be 

severable from this section and shall not 

affect the remainder thereof or the 

application of the provision to persons 

not similarly situated or to dissimilar 

circumstances. 

Title 45 

PART 16—PROCEDURES OF THE 

DEPARTMENTAL GRANT APPEALS 

BOARD 

■ 7. The authority for part 16 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 and secs. 1, 5, 6, 

and 7 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953, 

18 FR 2053, 67 Stat. 631 and authorities cited 

in the Appendix. 

■ 8. Section 16.22 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) and 

adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 16.22 The effect of an appeal. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) In programs listed in appendix A, 

B.(a)(1), to this part implement a 

decision to disallow Federal financial 

participation claimed in expenditures 

reported on a statement of expenditures, 

by recovering, withholding or offsetting 

payments, if the decision is issued 

before the reported expenditures are 

included in the calculation of a 

subsequent grant; 

(4) Take other action to recover, 

withhold, or offset funds if specifically 

authorized by statute or regulation; or 

(5) Take action to require a State to 

suspend procedural disenrollments, as 

defined at 42 CFR 430.5, or continue the 

accrual of the civil money penalties a 

State owes under 42 CFR 430.49(c). 

■ 9. Appendix A of part 16 is amended 

in section B by adding paragraph (a)(7) 

to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 16—What Disputes 

the Board Reviews 

* * * * * 

B. * * * 

(a) * * * 

(7) Decisions relating to suspensions of 

procedural disenrollments and civil money 

penalties under 42 CFR 430.49(c). 

* * * * * 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26640 Filed 12–4–23; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket Nos. 22–411; 22–271; FCC 23– 

73; FR ID 188451] 

Expediting Initial Processing of 

Satellite and Earth Station Applications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) adopts changes to its 

rules aimed at expediting the initial 

license application processing for 

satellite operators. The Commission 

establishes timeframes for placing 

satellite and earth station applications 

on public notice, eliminates a 

procedural rule that prevents 

consideration of requests for waiver of 

the International Table of Frequency 

Allocations, and removes the 

prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt 

systems for non-geostationary orbit 

(NGSO) operators. Additionally, the 

Commission creates a new, streamlined 

processing framework for earth station 

operators to add satellite points of 

communication under certain 

circumstances. Finally, the Commission 

lays the groundwork for a broader 

Transparency Initiative led by the Space 

Bureau to provide clarity and access to 

applicants when interfacing with the 

Commission’s license application 

processes and filing system. 

DATES: Effective January 5, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Malette, Attorney Advisor, Satellite 

Programs and Policy Division, Space 

Bureau, at 202–418–2453 or 

julia.malette@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, FCC 23–73, adopted 

September 21, 2023, and released 

September 22, 2023. The document is 

available for download at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC23-73A1.pdf. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities, (e.g., Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format, etc.) send 

an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), or 

202–418–0432 (TTY). A proposed rule 

relating to further expediting satellite 

and earth station application processing 

is published elsewhere in this issue of 

the Federal Register. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84738 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA), requires that 

an agency prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for notice and 

comment rulemakings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ Accordingly, 

the Commission has prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

concerning the possible impact of the 

rule changes contained in this 

document on small entities. The FRFA 

is set forth in Section IV below. 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis 

This document does not contain new 

or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission has determined, and 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs that this rule is ‘‘non-major’’ 

under the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of the Report and Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) advances opportunities 

for innovation in the new space age by 

taking measures to expedite the 

application processes for space stations 

and earth stations, consistent with the 

Commission’s objective to ‘‘promote a 

competitive and innovative global 

telecommunications marketplace via 

space services.’’ Applications for space 

services before the Commission 

continue to increase in complexity and 

number. Concrete measures to expedite 

the initial processing of applications for 

authority to operate space and earth 

stations under part 25 of the 

Commission’s rules are vital to 

supporting U.S. leadership in the 

growing space economy. Accordingly, 

the rule updates and policy changes the 

Commission adopts today will: (1) 

improve the process that Commission 

staff uses to review space and earth 

station applications for acceptability for 

filing and to place the applications on 

public notice; (2) eliminate processing 

rules that are no longer necessary; (3) 

establish timeframes for placing space 

and earth stations on public notice; and 

(4) advance other initiatives to expedite 

the processing of applications. In 

addition, as part of the Space Innovation 

agenda, the Space Bureau will 

undertake a Transparency Initiative. 

The goal of this initiative is to provide 

information and guidance, in a variety 

of forms, to interested parties so they 

can understand the Commission’s 

procedures and what is needed to obtain 

authorization for their proposed space 

station and earth station operations. The 

Commission believes that this initiative 

will reduce administrative burdens on 

both applicants and staff and will 

further expedite the processing of 

applications. 

II. Background 

2. To facilitate application filing and 

processing, the Commission has 

improved the standard forms for 

satellite and earth station applications 

(FCC Form 312, 312R, and Schedules A 

and S) and is currently working on 

improvements to its online filing system 

for such applications, the International 

Communications Filing System (ICFS). 

In addition, the Commission has 

regularly taken steps to streamline its 

part 25 rules. As part of previous 

streamlining efforts, the Commission 

adopted a 45-day expected period for 

placing on public notice applications 

both for initial space station 

authorizations and for modification of a 

space station authorization. The 

Commission also adopted an expected 

time of 60 days for acting on space 

station applications after the close of the 

comment period. For applications for 

special temporary authority (STA) for a 

space station, the Commission expected 

the application would be placed on 

public notice within 14 days of receipt 

(if public notice is required) and acted 

on within 30 days after the close of the 

comment period, or within 30 days of 

receipt if public notice is not required. 

In addition, expected processing times 

were also announced for earth station 

applications. These times were 45 days 

from confirmation of receipt of payment 

for placing applications for initial earth 

station authorizations or modifications 

on public notice, and 60 days after close 

of the comment period for action; 30 

days from confirmation of receipt of 

payment for placing initial registrations 

of receive-only earth stations or 

modifications on public notice, and 45 

days after close of comment period for 

action; and 14 days from confirmation 

of receipt of payment for applications 

for special temporary authority for earth 

stations, and 30 days after close of 

comment period for action, unless the 

application does not require public 

notice before action, in which case the 

expected time for action is 30 days of 

receipt. In all cases, the Commission’s 

expectations applied to ‘‘straightforward 

applications that are not contested’’ and 

were set ‘‘barring any complication.’’ 

3. As we enter the new space age, 

applications for space services before 

the Commission continue to increase in 

complexity and number. In response to 

this unprecedented era of growth in the 

space industry, the Commission 

launched the Space Bureau on April 11, 

2023. Space activities are increasing in 

almost every industry sector. The 

Commission must, therefore, make 

expediting the processing of 

applications a priority of its Space 

Innovation Agenda. If the current rate of 

filings for applications continues in 

2023, the Commission will receive 

approximately four times the number of 

space station applications and three 

times the number of earth station 

applications than it received in 2015. In 

addition, the complexity of applications 

continues to increase as new and novel 

space technologies are presented for 

consideration. The commercial space 

industry is evolving at a rapid pace, and 

it is critical that the Commission keeps 

up with the cadence of applications and 

complexity of regulatory issues 

presented. 

4. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) sought comment broadly on 

changes to Commission rules, policies, 

or practices to facilitate the acceptance 

for filing of space and earth station 

applications under part 25. In 

particular, the NPRM proposed to 

remove a procedural rule that formally 

prevents consideration of waiver 

requests for operations not in 

conformance with the International 

Table of Frequency Allocations. It also 

sought comment on whether the limits 

on applications for NGSO systems and 

unbuilt NGSO systems should be 

amended, and whether the Commission 

should provide greater transparency or 

certainty with respect to its expected 

application processing timelines. In 

response to the NPRM, 24 comments, 11 

reply comments, and multiple ex parte 

notifications were filed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84739 

III. Discussion 

a. Facilitating the Application Process 

5. An essential element of expediting 

the application process is to make it 

easier for applicants to understand what 

is required to have an application 

accepted for filing and to avoid the 

dismissal of an application. 

Accordingly, the Commission discusses 

the steps it takes today, and will take in 

the future, to provide transparency and 

guidance regarding Commission 

licensing procedures, as well as to 

reduce the risk of an application being 

dismissed, without considering the 

merits of the application, due to filing 

requirements that the Commission 

deems are no longer needed to serve the 

public interest. 

i. Transparency and Guidance 

6. The NPRM sought comment on 

whether there is additional guidance or 

other assistance that the Commission 

should provide to applicants to avoid 

required information being omitted in 

their initial filings. Omission of required 

information can result in delays in 

processing an application, or even in the 

dismissal of an application. 

Commenters who responded to the 

Commission’s procedural and technical 

inquiries overwhelmingly support the 

proposal of the Commission issuing 

guidance on the application process. 

7. The Commission believes that the 

licensing process for space and earth 

station applications can be expedited by 

making it more transparent and 

providing applicants with further 

guidance on the initial application 

stages, as several commenters have 

suggested. The Commission agrees with 

commenters that clarity and guidance 

on what is required for an application 

to be acceptable for filing will result in 

an increase in complete filings that can 

be swiftly accepted for filing, which will 

in turn expedite the processing of space 

and earth station applications. Clear and 

transparent guidance to the applicant 

will aid in expediting application 

processing for both the applicants and 

staff. Accordingly, the Space Bureau 

will undertake a Transparency Initiative 

to provide such guidance. The goal of 

this initiative is to provide information 

and guidance, in a variety of forms, to 

interested parties so they can 

understand the Commission’s 

procedures and what is needed to obtain 

authorization for their proposed space 

station and earth station operations. The 

Commission believes that this initiative 

will reduce administrative burdens on 

both applicants and staff and will 

further expedite the processing of 

applications. The guidance will take a 

variety of forms, including ‘‘frequently 

asked questions’’ or helpful links on the 

FCC’s website. In other cases, public 

workshops may be held to explain 

certain requirements. 

8. The initiative will cover a variety 

of topics, for example, application 

completeness and orbital debris 

requirements. Additionally, when the 

Commission releases the updated 

International Communications Filing 

System (ICFS), the system will include 

multiple forms of guidance for users, 

including training videos for the ICFS 

application process and a helpful links 

page. The Commission believes that this 

Transparency Initiative will address 

many of the specific requests that 

commenters have identified in this 

record, facilitate new entrants into the 

space economy, and further expedite the 

Commission’s processes to meet the 

needs of the innovative and expanding 

space sector. 

9. In addition, the Commission will 

continue to consider various ways in 

which the Space Bureau can provide 

more clarity and guidance on the 

application process moving forward, 

including, for example, various methods 

for increasing transparency around the 

inter-bureau and inter-agency 

coordination process. The Commission 

expects this to be a continuing process 

and believes that this investment of time 

and resources will pay off in reducing 

staff time in reviewing and correcting 

incomplete applications and applicant 

time responding to staff requests for 

missing information, which will in turn 

expedite the processing of space and 

earth station applications. The 

Commission encourages stakeholders to 

discuss their needs for information and 

guidance directly with Space Bureau 

staff in order that they may be 

considered and addressed in ways that 

do not require a change in Commission 

rules. 

10. The Commission received a wide 

variety of comments related to the 

NPRM’s various procedural and 

technical streamlining questions 

including suggestions to provide 

certifications or fill-in template forms in 

lieu of narratives to the extent possible 

and SpaceX suggests this could be done 

as a way of standardizing orbital debris 

showings. The Commission declines to 

change showings that require a narrative 

to certifications at this time, noting that 

the Commission has recently taken 

additional steps to utilize certifications 

where appropriate, such as in the 2020 

unified licensing proceeding, which 

included new certification options for 

earth station operators. Moreover, as 

EchoStar noted in its comments, certain 

showings require a more thorough and 

nuanced explanation than what could 

be contained in a certification. But the 

Commission agrees that providing 

applicants with more clarity and 

guidance on orbital debris plans will aid 

in Commission review, as SpaceX 

points out, and plans to incorporate 

such guidance into the Commission’s 

Transparency Initiative. 

ii. Reducing Risk of Dismissal 

11. The Commission finds that 

expediting the processing of space and 

earth station applications requires 

reducing the risk that an application 

will be dismissed before full 

consideration of the merits of the 

application, thereby necessitating 

refiling the application and restarting 

the application process anew. The 

Commission takes several actions below 

to address these issues in light of 

existing reasons for dismissal. 

1. Omissions, Inconsistencies, and 

Errors 

12. Existing rules provide that a space 

or earth station application is 

considered unacceptable for filing if the 

application is defective with respect to 

completeness of answers to questions, 

informational showings, internal 

inconsistencies, execution, or other 

matters of a formal character. The 

requirement that applications be 

‘‘substantially complete’’ when filed has 

been in place since 1998 and ended the 

practice of reviewing the accuracy or 

merits of specific information in an 

application before placing it on public 

notice. Under the ‘‘substantially 

complete’’ standard, an application is 

reviewed to ensure that it contains all 

information required by the 

Commission’s rules and, if an 

application fails to include any of the 

required information, the application is 

returned without prejudice as being 

unacceptable for filing. 

13. The NPRM noted that in recent 

years, Commission staff have worked 

with applicants to correct omissions or 

inconsistencies in their applications in 

order for an application to be deemed 

acceptable for filing under Commission 

rules. The NPRM sought comment on 

this practice and potential alternatives 

that might speed up application review, 

such as dismissing applications that 

contained internal inconsistencies or 

omissions without prejudice to refiling 

or, conversely, loosening the standards 

for acceptability of filing. 

14. After consideration of the record, 

the Commission will maintain the 

practice of not immediately dismissing 

applications that contain omissions or 

internal inconsistencies and instead 

working with applicants to correct such 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84740 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

omissions or inconsistencies so that the 

application may be acceptable for filing. 

Most comments encourage the 

continuation of the practice of 

communicating with applicants and 

allowing them opportunities to cure 

small mistakes or omissions, instead of 

issuing dismissals. The Commission 

finds that dismissing space and earth 

station applications for even minor 

omissions and inconsistencies, without 

an opportunity to correct the 

deficiencies, is inconsistent with the 

Commission’s goal of expediting the 

processing of space and earth station 

applications, since substantial time is 

required to dismiss and refile a 

corrected application. The Commission 

agrees that the same result can be 

achieved in less time by promptly 

reviewing the application for any 

deficiencies and communicating these 

deficiencies to the applicant, and by 

giving a limited time for the applicant 

to make corrections or to provide 

missing information. 

15. In order to achieve the goal of 

expediting application processing, the 

Commission expects the Space Bureau 

will provide applicants with limited 

timeframes to respond to requests for 

additional information or to promptly 

rectify inconsistencies or omissions in 

the application. Limiting the time to 

respond will encourage applicants to 

file applications that are as complete 

and accurate as possible, with only 

minor errors or omissions that require 

correction in the limited timeframe for 

responding and will help ensure that a 

request for information does not result 

in unnecessary delay of processing the 

application if the applicant does not 

respond in a timely manner. Several 

comments support time limits for 

applicants to respond to Commission 

staff with additional information or 

corrections so as to avoid a drawn-out 

initial review process. Failure to 

respond within those timeframes will 

risk dismissal of the application under 

existing rules. Although some 

comments proposed specific deadlines 

for applicants to respond to staff 

inquiries, the Commission declines to 

adopt specific deadlines at this time. 

Space and earth station applications can 

vary greatly depending on the nature of 

the operations or whether the activities 

are novel or involve new technology. As 

such, it is important to allow some 

flexibility and case-by-case 

determinations on setting time limits for 

responses from applicants. The deadline 

for response will be communicated 

clearly to applicants as part of requests 

for additional information or notices to 

the applicant that there are errors, 

omissions, or inconsistencies that need 

to be resolved before finding the 

application to be acceptable for filing. 

16. The Commission finds that it is 

unnecessary to change its rules in order 

to implement this practice. Although 

the existing rules state that an applicant 

will be dismissed for various omissions 

or internal inconsistencies, it does not 

preclude staff from allowing applicants 

the opportunity to cure omissions or 

internal inconsistencies before 

accepting the application for filing. The 

Commission expects that there will be 

prompt communications between staff 

and applicants in order to expedite the 

application process. 

17. The Commission also received 

several comments on whether to loosen 

the standard for accepting applications 

for filing. AWS and OneWeb put forth 

what they deem to be faster processes 

for placing applications on public 

notice. AWS suggests that, at least for 

earth station applicants, applications 

could be automatically placed on public 

notice after a designated period and 

applicants could work to cure any errors 

or omissions during the public notice 

period. OneWeb advocates for a ‘‘check 

box’’ determination method for placing 

applications on public notice and 

proposes revisions to § 25.112(a)(1) to 

enable quicker determination. Boeing 

also suggests that the Commission could 

place applications on public notice 

without necessarily first finding them to 

be acceptable for filing. Conversely, 

Viasat asserts that loosening the 

acceptability for filing standards would 

not lead to streamlining, but rather, 

would result in larger numbers of 

deficient or incomplete applications 

being reviewed by Commission staff and 

third parties, wasting limited resources. 

Similarly, Verizon/AT&T assert that 

more stringent standards would reduce 

processing times by incentivizing 

applicants to submit complete and 

accurate applications in the first 

instance if they believe the Commission 

is more likely to dismiss an application 

if it is not complete. Kuiper asserts that 

applications should be complete at the 

time of filing to avoid inefficiencies in 

review and suggests that the 

Commission require applicants to 

include a checklist table in their 

application demonstrating completeness 

and compliance with all relevant rules. 

Others do not advocate for 

strengthening or loosening standards, 

but rather assert that the Commission 

could streamline the acceptability for 

filing process through guidance, by 

more clearly articulating the 

Commission’s ‘‘substantially complete’’ 

threshold. 

18. The Commission finds that it is 

not necessary to loosen its acceptability 

for filing standards in order to expedite 

the processing of space and earth station 

applications. The Commission has 

previously explained what is meant by 

‘‘substantially complete,’’ and continues 

to hold to this understanding: ‘‘[t]he 

applications must be complete in 

substance, and must provide all the 

information required in the application 

form.’’ This is a reasonable standard for 

finding that an application is acceptable 

for filing, and acceptance for filing has 

legal consequences for a GSO-like space 

station’s place in the queue or an NGSOlike space station’s place in a processing 

round. As such, the Commission 

continues to find that there is merit to 

holding applications to a ‘‘substantially 

complete’’ standard and to review an 

application to ensure that it complies 

with this standard before accepting the 

application for filing. The Commission 

is not convinced that looser standards 

will result in an expedited process, and 

agrees with commenters who note that 

looser standards on the front end of 

application review will likely lead to a 

more burdensome review of incomplete 

applications at later stages of the 

application process. Although the 

Commission recognizes the interest in 

straightforward review, such as via a 

‘‘check box’’ determination, part 25 

applications cover many types of 

operations, which makes it infeasible to 

capture all elements of such diverse 

operations in a ‘‘check box’’ format. The 

Commission is also not convinced that 

more stringent acceptability for filing 

standards will expedite application 

processing. Rigidity in the initial 

application review can lead to 

premature dismissals, which in turn 

will take more of staff and applicants’ 

resources. Instead, the Commission 

believes that the process can be 

expedited by providing applicants at the 

initial application stages with greater 

transparency and guidance, which 

applicants will be able to access on the 

Commission’s website as part of the 

Space Bureau’s Transparency Initiative. 

19. Finally, numerous commenters 

support changes to the license 

application forms that would reduce 

duplication and the need to manually 

input technical information in various 

locations, which would reduce the risk 

of missing or inconsistent information 

being submitted. Likewise, commenters 

generally support the inclusion of 

compliance checks into the application 

process. Specifically, numerous 

commenters have suggested that the 

Commission consider these types of 

updates to specific licensing forms, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84741 

including the Form 312, the Schedule S, 

and the Schedule B. Additionally, 

although the Commission did not 

specifically ask about updates to ICFS, 

several commenters suggest that the 

Commission consider updates or a 

general overhaul of the filing system. 

20. The Commission observes that the 

electronic filing system used for space 

and earth station applications, ICFS, is 

already being updated in ways that 

respond to many of the issues that 

commenters raise regarding the 

technicalities of the application process. 

As a result of these updates, ICFS will 

have several new features for 

application forms, including automatic 

error notifications in the Form 312, data 

entry alerts to misinformation, and an 

overall validation prior to submitting a 

filing. There also will be some pre-filled 

sections of the application form based 

on previously entered data. With regard 

to modification or amendment 

applications, applicants will be 

presented with a pre-filled form 

including the information from their 

current authorization or pending 

application that they seek to modify or 

amend. This pre-filled form can then be 

adjusted in the areas that the applicant 

seeks to modify or amend. Additionally, 

the Schedule B and Form 312 will allow 

users to delete or remove sections or 

data that are no longer needed. The 

Commission is also updating the fields 

in the Schedule S to better align with 

technical rules. The Commission finds 

that these updates address many, but 

not all, of the changes recommended by 

the comments. The Space Bureau 

expects to continue dialogue with 

system users about possible further 

improvements after the initial 

modifications of ICFS are introduced. 

2. Conformance With International 

Frequency Allocations 

21. Currently, with the exception of 

applications for streamlined small 

satellite and small spacecraft 

applications, applications will be 

dismissed if they request authority to 

operate a space station in a frequency 

band that is not allocated 

internationally for such operations 

under the Radio Regulations of the 

International Telecommunication 

Union. The Commission adopted this 

rule in 2003, with the purpose of 

eliminating premature applications filed 

prior to the ITU adopting a necessary 

frequency allocation, which can take 

several years. At the time, the 

Commission had reasoned that 

applications that were filed far in 

advance of adoption of an ITU 

allocation had a likelihood of being 

placeholder applications for purposes of 

warehousing spectrum. 

22. The Commission adopts the 

NPRM’s proposal to amend the license 

application acceptability for filing 

criteria to place waiver requests for 

satellite operations not in conformance 

with the International Table of 

Frequency Allocations on an equal 

procedural footing with other requests 

for waiver of substantive Commission 

rules. Comments widely support 

adoption. Furthermore, the limitation 

on acceptance of applications has 

caused delay in review of applications 

for acceptability for filing and has 

complicated review of space station 

applications, which is contrary to the 

goal of expediting the space station 

application process. In addition, as the 

Commission observed when it adopted 

streamlined rules for the processing of 

applications for small satellites, there 

may be benefits associated with 

operations not consistent with the 

current International Table of Frequency 

Allocations in certain circumstances. 

Finally, Commission experience over 

the last twenty years since the rule was 

adopted supports the finding that the 

concerns about warehousing of 

spectrum and orbital resources through 

placeholder applications have been 

effectively addressed through the 

Commission’s milestone and bond 

requirements, which makes this rule 

unnecessary. The Commission finds that 

adoption of this proposal will help 

avoid the dismissal of an application for 

failure to meet a rule that is no longer 

needed to protect against placeholder 

applications that warehouse spectrum 

resources. 

23. Accordingly, the Commission 

amends § 25.112 of Commission rules to 

delete subparagraph (a)(3) and will no 

longer immediately dismiss applications 

that request authority to operate a space 

station in a frequency band that is not 

allocated internationally for such 

operations under the ITU Radio 

Regulations when the applications 

include a request for waiver of the 

allocation. Section 25.112(b) also is 

revised accordingly to remove reference 

to paragraph (a)(3) of § 25.112. The 

Commission emphasizes that this 

decision to allow the Commission to 

review such applications is not 

intended to alter the allocation status of 

these bands. In considering the merits of 

such requests, the Commission 

recognizes its obligations as a ratifying 

member of the ITU, and as the 

regulatory body that allocates spectrum 

for commercial use in the United States. 

Accordingly, any application that 

includes waiver requests for satellite 

operations not in conformance with the 

International Table of Frequency 

Allocations would need to demonstrate 

sufficient justification to support the 

waiver request in light of Article 4.4 of 

the International Telecommunication 

Union Radio Regulations (ITU R.R.), 

which states that Administrations shall 

not assign frequencies to a station in 

derogation of the International Table of 

Frequency Allocations, except on the 

express condition that the station’s use 

of the frequencies shall not cause 

harmful interference to, and shall not 

claim protection from harmful 

interference caused by, a station 

operating in accordance with the ITU 

R.R. For example, the Commission 

agrees with comments that urge, to the 

extent that there are co-channel 

operations that might be the subject of 

potential interference, the request for 

waiver should address those operations. 

The Commission may also consider, on 

a case-by-case basis, as some have 

suggested, opening rulemaking 

proceedings and accounting for any 

relevant ITU process to address 

potential related allocation issues if 

appropriate. Moreover, the Commission 

expects that such applicants would be 

engaged contemporaneously in 

activities to work toward modification 

of the International Table of Allocations 

at the ITU, and the applicants should 

consider describing the status of such 

efforts in their application. The 

Commission also encourages entities 

that are considering making a request 

for authorization for a non-conforming 

operation to discuss the request with 

Commission staff prior to filing. 

24. A few commenters suggest that the 

Commission adopt specific 

requirements related to these nonconforming operations beyond the 

Commission’s rules for considering 

waivers, and propose other limitations, 

including for protecting against 

potential interference to operations in 

the radioastronomy service (RAS) and 

earth exploration-satellite service 

(EESS). Other commenters argue that 

interference concerns to such services 

can be managed through coordination. 

The Commission declines to adopt such 

proposals and is not convinced that 

adopting strict engineering protocols is 

a necessary or appropriate means for 

preventing interference for every 

operation, or for operations in certain 

services. Further, it will not result in 

expediting the licensing process for 

applicants or the Commission. Instead, 

the Commission can process such 

requests on a case-by-case basis, taking 

into account the facts and circumstances 

of individual waiver requests and the 

potential for harmful interference in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84742 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

specific cases. Based on the 

Commission’s experience in instances 

where applicants have been granted 

limited non-conforming operations, 

such as in the small satellite context, 

any waivers that the Commission 

determines to grant would include noninterference conditions and 

coordination conditions as necessary. 

25. Furthermore, the Commission is 

not convinced that caps on the number 

of waivers it grants or on the duration 

of operations will prevent the potential 

for harmful interference, and such caps 

will not further Commission goals to 

streamline the licensing process. Rather, 

the Commission emphasizes its review 

on technical showings of noninterference and on coordination 

requirements, which will better prevent 

harmful interference in these 

circumstances. Similarly, the 

Commission will not exclude entire 

bands from consideration for nonconforming use, as some commenters 

suggested. To preemptively exclude 

certain bands from possible waiver 

request consideration would undercut 

goals of fostering innovation in the 

satellite industry since the Commission 

cannot predict what bands will support 

future development. The Commission 

believes that the requirements for 

demonstrating non-interference and 

coordination, along with the 

Commission’s waiver standards, will 

provide sufficient protections to existing 

services. 

3. Unbuilt NGSO Systems 

26. Commission rules currently 

contain procedural safeguards against 

applications that are considered more 

likely to be speculative or intended to 

warehouse spectrum resources, 

including the prohibition on one party 

having multiple NGSO-like applications 

or licensed but unbuilt NGSO systems 

in the same frequency band. This 

prohibition prevents a party from 

applying for an additional NGSO-like 

satellite system license in a particular 

frequency band if that party already has 

an application for an NGSO-like satellite 

system license on file or a licensed-butunbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in 

the band. The Commission adopted the 

unbuilt systems rule, in addition to 

bond and milestone requirements, as a 

means to restrain speculation without 

restricting applicants’ business plans 

and to give licensees an incentive to 

surrender licenses for satellite systems 

that they do not intend to build. 

Recognizing that the unbuilt NGSO 

systems rule can lead to delays in 

processing applications by adding 

complexity to the review in determining 

whether an applicant has violated the 

rule, and, considering the current rapid 

state of development of NGSO systems, 

the Commission sought comment on 

whether the limit on unbuilt NGSO 

systems may be a hinderance to the 

acceptability of legitimate satellite 

applications and if so, whether the 

Commission should amend or eliminate 

such limitation. 

27. After review of the record, the 

Commission concludes that the goal of 

expediting the initial processing of 

space station applications will be 

advanced by eliminating the part of the 

Commission’s rules in §§ 25.159(b) and 

25.137(d)(5) that prohibits a licensee or 

market access grantee respectively from 

applying for another NGSO license or 

grant of market access where the party 

has an already licensed-but-unbuilt 

NGSO system for the same frequencies. 

The Commission finds that it is often 

time consuming to determine whether 

the relevant applicant violates this 

prohibition, for example when there are 

disputes in the record regarding 

whether a system is ‘‘unbuilt,’’ and the 

need to make this determination prior to 

accepting an application for filing can 

delay placing an application on public 

notice to permit consideration of the 

application on the merits. In situations 

where it was not clear whether the 

prohibition has been violated by the 

proposed application, the Space Bureau 

(and the former International Bureau) 

has accepted the application for filing, 

without prejudice to a determination 

And the Commission is not convinced, 

as some commenters suggest, that its 

elimination will lead to speculative 

license applications or spectrum 

hoarding. The Commission’s current 

bond and milestone requirements, 

which were also put in place to deter 

speculative license applications and 

spectrum warehousing, remain in place, 

and the Commission agrees with many 

commenters who note that these 

requirements serve as adequate 

deterrents. The Commission’s 

experience has been that the restriction 

on unbuilt NGSO systems is 

unnecessary to deter warehousing of 

spectrum and orbital resources, in light 

of the bond and milestone requirements 

and other safeguards, and the restriction 

on unbuilt NGSO systems could delay 

processing times without a 

corresponding benefit to the public. 

However, the Commission retains and 

revises the portion of the rule that 

prohibits operators from filing multiple 

applications in the same frequency band 

where such applications are subject to 

NGSO-like processing round rules, 

which require that in the event there is 

insufficient spectrum in the requested 

frequency band or there is harmful 

interference between NGSO FSS 

licensees, the available spectrum is 

divided equally among licensees. 

28. Several commenters suggested 

that instead of eliminating the 

prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt 

systems, the Commission could ‘‘soften’’ 

the rule, amend it, more broadly 

interpret the meaning of ‘‘unbuilt’’, or 

issue waivers on a case-by-case basis. 

The Commission finds that these 

suggested changes for nuanced, case-bycase approaches in interpretation would 

not result in an expedited review 

process on the whole. Rather additional 

review, and therefore a more-lengthy 

application processing timeframe, 

would be required. Kuiper suggests that 

the Commission amend the rule to focus 

on investment and progress. The 

Commission’s current bond and 

milestone requirements are set up for 

such purpose. When the Commission 

adopted the bond requirements in 2003, 

the Commission reasoned that requiring 

satellite licensees to make a financial 

commitment to construct and launch 

their satellites would help deter 

speculative applications and thus 

prevent valuable spectrum resources 

from lying fallow. When the 

Commission adopted a revised 

escalating methodology for bond and 

milestone rules in 2015, which 

increases operators’ liability over time, 

the Commission aimed to further 

incentivize satellite operators to 

construct and launch spacecraft 

expeditiously or surrender their 

authorization early. The Commission 

agrees with comments that state that the 

Commission’s bond and milestone rules 

have been effective in deterring 

speculative applications, and the 

Commission finds that the licensed-butunbuilt NGSO-like systems prohibition 

on filing an application for another 

NGSO-like satellite system license in 

that frequency band in § 25.159(b) has 

become redundant, while also creating 

an additional hurdle to the application 

process for NGSO operators. While the 

Commission agrees that a focus on 

investment and progress towards 

completing a system is prudent, it does 

not agree that amending the unbuilt 

systems rule to focus on investment is 

necessary. Rather, the most effective 

method for streamlining the application 

process is to eliminate the prohibition 

on applying for another NGSO system 

license when an applicant already has a 

licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like system 

and rely on the Commission’s 

longstanding bond and milestone 

requirements. 

29. Several commenters suggest that 

at the very least EESS operators should 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84743 

be exempt from the unbuilt NGSO 

systems rule given their views that EESS 

operators often have the ability to share 

spectrum without causing interference. 

This point is moot given the decision to 

eliminate the prohibition on licensedbut-unbuilt systems and therefore there 

is no longer any need to expressly 

exempt EESS operators from it. 

However, the Commission agrees with 

commenters that EESS NGSO operators 

provide a relevant example for why the 

one-size-fits-all unbuilt NGSO systems 

rule did not account for the nuance of 

certain NGSO satellite operations, or the 

way NGSO systems have developed in 

the 20 years since the rule was 

implemented. As both Spire and a group 

of EESS operators point out, EESS 

operations licenses are routinely granted 

outside of processing rounds, which the 

unbuilt systems rule was designed for. 

Again, the Commission’s experience 

and the record demonstrate that 

eliminating the prohibition on licensedbut-unbuilt systems is the most efficient 

method for streamlining, and because of 

the bond and milestone requirements, 

the Commission can do so without 

jeopardizing its goals to prevent 

spectrum warehousing and speculative 

applications. Additionally, by revising 

the remaining language in §§ 25.159(b) 

and 25.137(d)(5) to clarify that the 

prohibition on filing multiple 

applications in the same frequency band 

is tied to being subject to the 

Commission’s ‘‘modified processing 

round rules,’’ found in § 25.157, EESS 

operators who are granted licenses or 

market access outside of processing 

rounds will not be subject to 

§§ 25.159(b) or 25.137(d)(5) at all. 

30. Several commenters suggest that 

the Commission take into account how 

to ensure that elimination of the unbuilt 

systems rule does not result in the 

potential for interference for other 

operators and ensure that ITU 

Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) 

limits are adhered to. ViaSat cautions 

that, if this rule were eliminated, 

applicants might ‘‘propose to operate 

multiple NGSO ‘systems’ that would use 

the same frequency bands as a way of 

circumventing the Commission’s 

substantive EPFD limits’’ or ‘‘attempt to 

game the default ‘band-splitting’ 

mechanism set forth in § 25.261 of the 

Commission’s rules (which divides 

spectrum equally among the ‘systems’ 

involved in an inline interference 

event).’’ Intelsat raises a similar concern 

regarding EPFD limits and suggests that 

the Commission clarify that NGSO 

systems must continue to adhere to the 

EPFD limits incorporated in § 25.146(c) 

of the Commission’s rules. This decision 

to eliminate the unbuilt systems rule 

does not alter § 25.146(c), which 

remains in place. Moreover, applicants 

will continue to be held to Commission 

and ITU rules on EPFD limits. And, as 

stated above, the Commission is 

retaining the portion of the rule that 

prohibits operators from filing multiple 

applications in the same frequency band 

in specific circumstances to avoid the 

possibility of a single operator receiving 

unequal division of spectrum in cases 

where band-splitting is required. 

31. SES, while supporting the removal 

of the unbuilt systems prohibition in 

§ 25.159 so long as other protections are 

in place, suggests that the Commission 

ensure that NGSO operators must be 

limited to one application per 

processing round. SES argues that 

‘‘[p]ermitting an applicant to submit two 

or more system designs in a [processing] 

round would multiply the burden on 

Commission staff and other round 

participants, who would be forced to 

evaluate each possible configuration, 

even if it is clear that the applicant only 

intends to build and launch one of its 

proposed options.’’ EchoStar disagrees 

and suggests that applicants might plan 

to use different NGSO systems for 

different applications, and given the 

financial commitments that are 

necessary, companies are unlikely to file 

applications frivolously. EchoStar 

appears to go even further and suggest 

that the Commission eliminate 

§ 25.159(d), which states, among other 

things, that ‘‘[i]n the event that a 

licensee misses three or more 

milestones within any three-year period, 

the Commission will presume that the 

licensee obtained one or more of those 

licenses for speculative purposes.’’ The 

Commission declines to consider this 

suggestion further as it is beyond the 

scope of the Commission’s queries 

related to paragraph (b), and the 

Commission finds that paragraph (d) in 

§ 25.159 plays a distinct and important 

role in deterring speculative 

applications. The Commission agrees 

with SES that there are different 

considerations related to its rules on the 

number of applications per applicant 

per processing round versus whether 

the applicant has a licensed-but-unbuilt 

system. Although NGSO systems have 

evolved and an operator may have two 

distinct purposes for seeking multiple 

applications in the same processing 

round, the Commission is not convinced 

that doing away with this aspect of the 

rules will expedite the application or 

review process for processing rounds, 

but rather would require heightened 

review and consideration that might 

delay the processing of the application. 

Additionally, this aspect of the rule 

serves to ensure that in the event there 

is insufficient available spectrum in a 

frequency band, the available spectrum 

will truly be shared equally among the 

licensees, as required by § 25.157(e) of 

Commission rules on NGSO processing 

rounds. Although commenters state that 

an applicant could have a legitimate 

reason to apply for separate systems in 

the same processing round, the 

commenters do not provide any 

concrete examples of what these reasons 

might be or how, as a general matter, the 

benefits of allowing multiple 

applications in the same processing 

round outweigh the identified potential 

harms. As a result, there is no basis in 

the record to determine that the 

potential harms identified by the 

Commission in adopting the rule, and 

identified by comments in this 

proceeding, could be outweighed by 

unspecified potential benefits. In sum, 

the Commission adopts revisions to 

§ 25.159(b) and its equivalent for market 

access grantees in § 25.137(d)(5) by 

eliminating the prohibition on licensedbut-unbuilt systems in these rules, but 

the Commission retains the limitation 

on the number of applications per 

NGSO operator per processing round. 

The Commission has also clarified the 

text related to the number of 

applications to demonstrate this limit is 

tied directly to being subject to the 

procedures in §§ 25.157 and 25.261. The 

Commission notes that it has eliminated 

references to §§ 25.122 (small satellites 

streamlined licensing procedure) and 

25.123 (small spacecraft streamlined 

licensing procedure) as exceptions to 

§ 25.159(b) and § 25.137(d)(5) because 

licenses granted under these 

streamlined procedures are made 

outside of a processing round and thus 

not subject to §§ 25.157 and 25.261. 

Additionally, the Commission revises 

§ 25.159(c) of the rules for clarification 

and to reflect these changes. 

4. Waiver Requests 

32. Current rules state that an 

application will be unacceptable for 

filing and will be returned to the 

applicant if it is defective, internally 

inconsistent, or incomplete, or if it does 

not substantially comply with the 

Commission’s rules, regulations, 

specific requests for additional 

information, or other requirements. 

Current rules also, however, specifically 

allow the Commission to accept for 

filing an application that is defective for 

these reasons if the application contains 

a request for waiver of any rule, 

regulation, or requirement with which 

the application is in conflict. 

Alternatively, the Commission may 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84744 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

accept the application if the 

Commission, upon its own motion, 

waives (or allows an exception to), in 

whole or in part, any rule, regulation or 

requirement. Thus, the current rules 

allow an otherwise defective application 

to be accepted for filing if it contains a 

request for waiver of a rule that it is in 

conflict with, or the Commission waives 

the rule on its own motion. 

33. The NPRM asked whether 

applications omitting necessary waiver 

requests should be dismissed, and how 

well-supported should a waiver request 

need to be to overcome the acceptability 

for filing requirements, including 

waivers of filing deadlines or waivers 

that raise novel issues. This is an 

important question, given the risk of an 

application being delayed from being 

accepted for filing while the applicant 

and opposing parties argue whether an 

application complies with Commission 

rules, where the application did not 

explicitly request a waiver of the rule in 

question. As a result of this argument, 

a decision on the merits of the 

application instead becomes a 

procedural question that inhibits 

accepting the application for filing and 

placing the application on public notice 

for comment, which is a prerequisite for 

acting on the application. 

34. The Commission finds that no 

change to its rules is necessary to 

address the potential delay of an 

application being accepted for filing 

because of a failure to request a waiver 

of Commission rules. Instead, the 

Commission encourages applicants to 

remember to request any necessary 

waivers of Commission rules or policies 

in order to avoid dismissal of 

applications or delay in accepting 

applications for filing. By filing a waiver 

request, the applicant removes a 

potential obstacle to accepting the 

application for filing and placing the 

application on public notice. Likewise, 

the Commission does not need to 

change any rules in order to answer the 

question of how well-supported a 

waiver request needs to be to overcome 

the acceptability for filing requirements. 

The current rules simply state that a 

defective application can be accepted 

for filing if it is ‘‘accompanied by a 

request which sets forth the reasons in 

support of a waiver of (or an exception 

to), in whole or in part, any specific 

rule, regulation, or requirement with 

which the application is in conflict.’’ 

Because the waiver request must seek a 

waiver of a ‘‘specific rule, regulation, or 

requirement,’’ an application cannot 

satisfy § 25.112(b)(1) with a blanket 

request for waiver of any unspecified 

rule that the Commission might find the 

application in conflict with. The rule 

does not impose any separate 

requirements on how well-supported 

the waiver request needs to be, so the 

general requirement for any waiver 

request to show ‘‘good cause’’ under 

Commission rules applies. 

35. Some comments suggest that the 

Commission adopt requirements for, or 

limitations on, requests of waivers of 

specific rules. The Commission finds 

that these suggestions go beyond the 

generalized goal of expediting the 

processing of space and earth station 

applications and are better addressed in 

the context of specific applications and 

rulemakings. Accordingly, the 

Commission will not address them here. 

b. Expediting Public Notice of 

Acceptability for Filing 

36. The Commission establishes 

timelines for Space Bureau staff to 

either: (1) determine that an application 

for authority to operate a space or earth 

station is acceptable for filing and place 

it on public notice; or (2) notify the 

applicant that staff has identified 

questions, errors, or omissions, and that 

the application will not be placed on 

public notice until after these questions, 

errors, or omissions are addressed by 

the applicant to the satisfaction of the 

Bureau. For all earth stations and GSO 

space station applications, the 

Commission concludes that a 30-day 

timeline is appropriate. For all NGSO 

space station applications, the 

Commission concludes a 60-day 

timeline is appropriate. In all cases, the 

timeline is measured in calendar days, 

starting on the day after the application 

is filed in ICFS. The Commission finds 

that expressing clear goals for accepting 

an application for filing or notifying the 

applicant of deficiencies will establish 

expectations for expedited processing of 

applications for both staff and 

applicants. 

37. The NPRM asked whether the 

Commission should have deadlines for 

accepting certain space or earth station 

license applications for filing or 

dismissing them as unacceptable for 

filing. It also sought comment on what 

a reasonable deadline might be and 

whether deadlines should depend on 

the type of application filed. 

Additionally, it asked whether there 

should be limitations on any 

acceptability for filing deadline the 

Commission might adopt, such as for 

applications requesting operations not 

consistent with the International Table 

of Frequency Allocations, or where the 

application could involve initiation of a 

new NGSO processing round, or for 

contested applications. Finally, it 

queried whether instituting a deadline 

would result in more dismissals. 

38. Most comments welcome the 

establishment of timeframes for placing 

applications on public notice, however, 

commenters differ on whether the 

timelines should be definitive 

deadlines, such as ‘‘shot clocks,’’ or 

more flexible goalposts. Commenters are 

generally wary of automatic dismissals. 

AWS explains that a shot clock resulting 

in automatic dismissal if not approved 

before the deadline would not 

streamline the process, rather it would 

require an additional review burden on 

both the applicant and the Commission 

staff. Instead of an automatic dismissal 

approach, AWS suggests that earth 

station applications could be 

automatically placed on public notice 

after 30 days if the Commission does not 

deem them acceptable for filing sooner. 

Inmarsat and SIA also suggest a 30-day 

shot clock for placing earth station 

applications on public notice. Boeing 

puts forth a similar suggestion, 

proposing that all earth station 

applications be placed on public notice 

after 30 days of filing and space stations 

after 90 days of filing, except in the 

event the staff determines that the 

application is incomplete or defective 

(thus requiring additional time for 

inquiry to the applicant). EchoStar also 

generally suggests a 30-day timeline for 

placing applications on public notice, 

unless they are deemed incomplete. 

However, EchoStar disagrees with the 

notion of making this timeline a shot 

clock and suggests that extensions to the 

timeline should be allowed when staff 

identify genuine issues that require 

more time to address. Globalstar and 

Viasat also advocate against firm shot 

clocks for placing applications on 

public notice, especially for space 

station license applications. Globalstar 

suggests that Commission staff will 

likely require at least 90 days for making 

the necessary technical assessments to 

find space station licenses acceptable 

for filing. SpaceX advocates for the 

Commission to adopt the anticipated 

timeframes the Commission 

contemplated in 2015 and 2016 for 

placing applications on public notice as 

firm shot clocks. 

39. The Commission believes that 

establishing specific timeframes for 

finding applications to be acceptable for 

filing and placing them on public notice 

will aid in expediting the licensing 

process. Additionally, the Commission 

agrees with those comments that 

highlight the need for the Commission 

to have sufficient time to review 

applications and notify and engage in 

dialogue with applicants whose 

applications may require additional 

communication between Commission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84745 

staff and the applicant due to the novel 

nature or complexity of the application. 

Given these considerations, the 

Commission concludes that maintaining 

a level of flexibility for dialogue with 

applicants is necessary when the Space 

Bureau staff discover errors, omissions, 

or unclear information. In these cases, 

the Commission includes an alternative 

to the specified timelines for 

determining acceptability for filing. 

However, in the spirit of transparency, 

the Commission directs the staff to 

notify applicants regarding their 

application status if those applications 

will not go on public notice within the 

specified timelines and offer the reasons 

why the application is not acceptable 

for filing. Applicants can expect, 

therefore, that they will receive some 

form of application status confirmation 

within the specified timelines, either 

with the application appearing on an 

accepted for filing public notice, or with 

a communication notifying the 

applicant that the application requires 

the submission of missing information. 

The Commission anticipates that the 

most common form of this 

communication will be a letter to the 

applicant from Space Bureau staff, but 

does not preclude the use of other forms 

of communication that provide adequate 

notice to the applicant of the need to 

submit missing information. The 

Commission also notes that it has a 

weekly schedule for placing 

applications that are accepted for filing 

on public notice: the earth station 

public notice is released each 

Wednesday, and the space station 

public notice is released each Friday. 

Therefore, in some circumstances, 

Space Bureau staff might determine an 

application is acceptable for filing 

within the 30- or 60-day timeframe, yet 

the application might not appear on 

public notice until the next possible 

public notice release date following the 

determination. 

40. Notably, the Commission does not 

require that an application be 

automatically dismissed if Space Bureau 

staff does not find it acceptable for filing 

within the specified timelines. Such a 

requirement could result in more 

applicants having to resubmit dismissed 

applications simply because of 

expiration of time, which would delay, 

rather than expedite, the earth and 

space station application process. The 

Commission also does not require 

automatically placing an application on 

public notice as acceptable for filing if 

Space Bureau staff does not act within 

the specified timelines. Although the 

Commission expects Space Bureau staff 

to act on applications consistent with 

the specific timelines established today, 

the Commission recognizes that unusual 

circumstances may prevent such timely 

action. For example, new information 

may be placed into the record at a very 

late date that calls into question 

whether the application is acceptable 

for filing and does not allow time for 

Space Bureau staff to notify the 

applicant that the application is not 

accepted for filing. It would not serve 

the public interest to automatically 

accept the application for filing in such 

circumstances, simply because of 

expiration of time. 

41. The Commission is mindful that 

different applications have different 

levels of complexity, and Commission 

rules require various considerations 

depending on the type of application. 

The Commission appreciates 

observations that space station 

applications in particular can require 

significant time to review, even for 

acceptability for filing. For NGSO 

applications, there is often a need for a 

longer time-period of initial review to 

reflect the greater complexity related to 

those applications. For example, 

deciding whether to accept an 

application as the lead application in a 

processing round requires a more 

substantive review than GSO 

applications which are not subject to a 

processing round because opening a 

new processing round affects not only 

the lead applicant, but also any other 

applicants that would apply in that 

processing round as well as applicants 

and grantees from prior processing 

rounds and, potentially, future 

processing rounds; further, potential 

lead applicants have often requested 

waiver of the processing round 

requirement altogether, which, if 

granted, would obviate the need to open 

a new round. Similarly, an application 

for NGSO space stations can include 

thousands of satellites in a single 

application, which greatly increases the 

amount of information that Space 

Bureau staff will need to review for 

acceptability for filing. Additionally, in 

the Commission’s experience, NGSO 

applicants typically request a larger 

range of frequencies and utilize more 

complex and numerous beam patterns 

than GSO applicants, which again 

necessitates a longer review period than 

that for GSO and earth station 

applications. 

42. The Commission also recognizes 

that the timelines it establishes today 

differ from some previously established, 

which did not distinguish between 

applications for GSO and NGSO space 

stations, and were for applications 

considered to be ‘‘straightforward’’, ‘‘not 

contested’’, and ‘‘barring any 

complications.’’ The Commission finds 

that applying these new timelines across 

application types will provide greater 

certainty to applicants, and that the 

initial review timelines for GSO space 

stations of 30 days and initial review 

timeline for NGSO space stations of 60 

days, reflects the differences identified 

above in the amount of time required to 

review the different types of 

applications. By establishing timelines 

for initial review that the Commission 

believes it can consistently meet, the 

Commission helps to mitigate regulatory 

uncertainty. 

43. The Commission also finds that it 

is unnecessary to limit these timelines 

to applications for initial authorizations 

and for modifications. The remaining 

categories of filings—amendments, 

transfers of control, and assignments— 

to the extent that they require public 

notice, are not inherently more complex 

or review intensive than applications for 

initial authorizations and for 

modification with respect to 

determining acceptability. The 

Commission also applies these 

timeframes across the board, rather than 

limiting them to a smaller category such 

as ‘‘straightforward’’ applications. The 

decision to accept an application for 

filing need not consider the underlying 

merits of the application and is 

generally done prior to receiving 

comments and objections from other 

parties, which results in a simpler 

process than deciding whether to grant 

or deny an application. In any event, the 

Commission believes that any staff time 

spent on determining whether an 

application is straightforward or not, for 

example, would be better spent on 

reviewing the application for public 

notice and resolving issues that prevent 

it from being accepted for filing. 

44. Although some commenters 

suggest that the Commission consider 

longer timeframes for initial space 

station review, the Commission notes 

that the initial review, while thorough, 

is focused on an acceptability for filing 

determination, not on the merits of the 

application, and generally does not 

require the evaluation of comments and 

oppositions to the application, and the 

Commission believes that the revised 

timelines adopted here can be achieved. 

These new timelines strike a balance 

between the need to place applications 

for earth and space station operations on 

public notice expeditiously, and the 

time needed for staff to make the 

determination of whether an application 

is acceptable for filing under 

Commission rules. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84746 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

c. Action on the Merits 

45. The NPRM sought comment 

generally on whether the Commission 

should adopt broader shot clocks for 

ultimate ‘‘action taken’’ on certain types 

of space station or earth station 

applications. The Commission received 

a wide variety of comments and 

suggestions on this issue and the record 

is divided on support for ‘‘action taken’’ 

shot clocks. Some commenters approve 

of shot clocks for certain types of 

applications (for example, just for earth 

station applications), while others argue 

that all types of space and earth station 

applications should have shot clocks for 

Commission action taken. Suggested 

shot clock timeframes range from 45 

days after the close of public notice to 

one year for ‘‘action taken’’ on an 

application. 

46. A number of commenters oppose 

shot clocks for actions taken, cautioning 

that the institution of shot clocks for 

taking action on licenses could 

jeopardize the thorough review of 

complex technical issues that the 

Commission’s rules require. Some 

commenters point out that considering 

action taken shot clocks is ‘‘premature’’ 

or that the Commission could consider 

the possibility of shot clocks in the 

future, after the Space Bureau has been 

well-established and resourced, but that 

implementing them should at least be 

deferred for the time being. As with the 

acceptability for filing issue, some 

commenters suggest that the 

Commission issue timelines instead of 

shot clocks, which would serve more as 

goals than obligations for action taken, 

or that the Commission can toll the shot 

clocks as needed. Several commenters 

offer specific suggestions for alternatives 

to action-taken shot clocks. Intelsat 

argues for an ‘‘auto grant’’ procedure for 

straightforward applications, and AWS 

suggests that uncontested earth station 

applications could begin operations on 

a non-inference basis after six months, 

if action is not yet taken on their 

application. 

47. Consistent with several of the 

commenters’ views, the Commission 

recognizes the need to process 

applications promptly after accepting 

them for filing. Nevertheless, the 

Commission declines at this time to 

adopt a general, one-size-fits-all shot 

clock for taking action on license 

applications. At this point in the 

proceeding, the record does not show 

that any timeframe in particular would 

accommodate these complexities while 

also accelerating action on more 

straightforward applications. However, 

the Commission is dedicated to 

fostering innovation in the satellite 

industry and to preserving the United 

States as an attractive and competitive 

licensing destination for satellite 

services. The Commission believes it is 

important to further consider and 

address issues raised by commenters 

regarding timelines for taking action on 

the merits of an application. The 

Commission therefore seeks further 

comment in the FNPRM on proposals 

regarding action on the merits such as 

shot clocks and/or timeframes for 

action. 

48. The Commission also finds that 

certain earth station applications are 

suitable for a more streamlined 

application review process, and the 

Commission discusses in more detail 

below its decision to expand the 

category of applications that may be 

deemed granted after a specific period 

of time. 

49. Within the scope of the inquiry 

regarding whether the Commission 

should consider adopting any shot 

clocks or processing deadlines, the 

Commission sought comment on which 

types of license applications the 

Commission should consider 

‘‘straightforward’’ and whether to 

implement processing timelines for 

such applications in particular. The 

Commission pointed to its 2016 public 

notice that identified expected 

processing timelines for straightforward, 

uncontested earth station applications, 

barring any complication, and asked 

whether these guidelines should be 

codified, whether a more flexible 

approach and considerations of other 

factors was warranted, or whether given 

the pace of change in space activities 

and corresponding number of 

applications presenting unique or 

complex issues, the Commission should 

limit the scope of ‘‘straightforward’’ 

applications. After considering the 

record, the Commission declines at this 

time to further identify or otherwise 

separate out processing timelines for 

‘‘straightforward’’ applications. 

50. The record was divided on this 

issue. Numerous commenters generally 

support the notion of identifying 

‘‘straightforward’’ applications and 

creating processing timeframes for those 

applications. However, only a few 

commenters specifically propose 

examples of applications that the 

Commission consider as 

‘‘straightforward.’’ RBC Signals suggests 

including: (1) applications for earth 

stations operating with a U.S.-licensed 

satellite and consistent with standard 

technical characteristics for the relevant 

bands; (2) earth station modification 

applications when it is an application to 

add a U.S.-licensed satellite or market 

access grantee operating in previously 

authorized bands; and (3) a new earth 

station license that is at a site within a 

defined distance of similar earth station 

operations (e.g., 1 mile) and operating 

within same parameters as pre-existing 

earth stations within the 

‘‘straightforward’’ category. Intelsat 

proposes that uncontested earth or 

space station applications that pose 

minimal interference risk should be 

considered ‘‘straightforward.’’ Boeing, 

TechFreedom, and SpaceX suggest that 

the Commission should not make such 

a distinction, and rather should apply 

shot clocks to all types of applications, 

regardless of whether they are 

‘‘straightforward.’’ 

51. The Commission does not believe 

the divided record supports the creation 

of a category of ‘‘straightforward’’ 

applications at this time. The 

Commission recognizes the potential 

benefit to creating such categories so 

long as they are well-defined, and so 

long as their development and 

application in specific cases do not 

hinder the goal of processing 

applications promptly. At the same 

time, the Commission recognizes the 

points made by SpaceX and 

TechFreedom that creating a carve-out 

for only ‘‘easy’’ or uncontested 

applications might incentivize the filing 

of oppositions and increase the number 

of contested applications. In the same 

vein the Commission agrees with 

commenters that the Commission can 

streamline its rules to expedite 

processing of routine and novel or 

complex applications. The Commission 

is currently faced with an 

unprecedented influx of earth station 

and space station applications. The 

Commission finds that the other 

concrete steps it is taking today, 

including removing no longer necessary 

rules that slow down the application 

process, committing to issue numerous 

forms of guidance for streamlining 

application filing, and creating a 30 and 

60-day timeframe for determining 

acceptability for filing, are the types of 

practical and necessary processing 

improvements that the Commission can 

quickly implement. Additionally, the 

Commission notes that it will further 

consider timeframes and/or shot clocks 

for actions taken on the merits of 

applications in the FNPRM. Taking into 

account the divided record on this 

issue, the Commission concludes that it 

would not serve the Commission’s goals 

to further identify or carve-out certain 

types of applications as 

‘‘straightforward’’ at this time. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84747 

d. Expediting Earth Station 

Applications To Add Points of 

Communication 

52. The Commission takes action to 

expedite the processing of a common 

category of earth station applications: 

applications to modify existing earth 

station licenses by adding new space 

stations as points of communication. 

Specifically, the Commission adopts a 

new rule, under which applications to 

add space station points of 

communication to existing earth station 

licenses will be deemed granted 35 days 

after being placed on public notice, 

under certain conditions described 

below and provided that no objection to 

the application is filed. This rule is 

added as a new paragraph, (i) in 

§ 25.117, which governs modifications 

of station licenses that require 

Commission authorization. While the 

Commission declines to draw lines 

based on whether to consider this type 

of application to be ‘‘straightforward,’’ 

the Commission finds that, under a 

specific set of conditions, the process of 

adding space station as additional 

points of communication to existing 

earth station licenses can be 

significantly expedited. 

53. Commission rules allow earth 

stations to transmit to any space station 

in the same radio service that is listed 

as a point of communication in the earth 

station license, provided that 

permission has been received from the 

space station operator to access that 

space station. The NPRM specifically 

asked whether applications to add 

points of communication to existing 

earth station licenses should qualify as 

‘‘straightforward’’ so long as the space 

station to be added is: (1) either U.S.- 

licensed, or (2) has been granted U.S. 

market access within the parameters 

requested in the earth station 

application, and the applicant identifies 

either the call sign of or the earth station 

license(s) in which the space station 

was granted market access. The NPRM 

sought comment on whether these types 

of applications should be automatically 

deemed granted 60 days after they are 

filed, absent other Commission action. 

54. Numerous commenters support 

the consideration of earth station 

operators’ applications to add 

previously authorized space stations as 

points of communication as 

‘‘straightforward’’ and to allow for 

applications to be deemed granted after 

60 days, absent other Commission 

action. AWS suggests that the 

Commission consider various 

benchmark shot clocks within the 60- 

day period for placing the application 

on public notice and coordination. 

Several commenters suggest that the 

Commission go even further and allow 

the addition of previously authorized 

points of communication through 

notification, such as via § 25.118 of 

Commission rules, instead of through a 

license application process. SpaceX 

proposes that notification, instead of 

authorization, should be allowed when 

a space station operator is also the earth 

station licensee and is requesting to add 

one of its own previously authorized 

space stations as a point of contact. 

Microsoft suggests that earth station 

operators could add any space station as 

a point of communication, so long as a 

certain set of conditions are met. 

EchoStar suggests that the Commission 

should permit earth station operators to 

specify in their application that they 

will communicate with all FCCauthorized NGSO systems (just as is 

done with GSO systems currently), 

which will reduce the number of 

modifications requiring filing. 

55. In contrast, several commenters 

suggest the Commission proceed with 

caution on this proposal. For example, 

Iridium cautions that in the case of earth 

stations subject to § 25.203(k) of the 

Commission’s rules, applicants must 

either complete coordination or 

demonstrate that they will not cause 

unacceptable interference and therefore 

proposes that given these requirements, 

such applications should not be 

considered ‘‘straightforward’’ or subject 

to the proposed 60-day timeline for 

being deemed granted. Viasat asserts 

that adding NGSO systems as points of 

communication could ‘‘upset’’ the EPFD 

limit calculations and coordination 

agreements in NGSO system 

authorizations. Viasat proposes that if 

the Commission allows for streamlining 

in adding points of communication, 

earth station operators should be 

required to include a certification that 

the addition will not result in 

operations or impacts inconsistent with 

the EPFD analysis or coordination 

agreements of the NGSO operator. 

56. After consideration of the record, 

the Commission concludes that, in a 

specific set of instances, it is feasible 

and appropriate to adopt a licensing 

procedure by which an application to 

add a point of communication can be 

deemed granted 35 days after the 

application has been found acceptable 

for filing and also placed on public 

notice if no sooner action is taken by the 

Commission. The Commission notes 

that in some instances an application 

might be found acceptable for filing 

within 30 days, but might not be placed 

on public notice exactly within 30 days 

due to the weekly schedule of releasing 

public notices. This timeline takes into 

account the Commission’s new 

timeframe for finding earth stations to 

be acceptable for filing within 30 days 

(or notifying the applicant of the need 

for further information). Therefore, a 

substantially complete application to 

add a point of communication would be 

found acceptable for filing and placed 

on public notice within 30 days, starting 

on the day after the application is filed 

in ICFS, and then would be deemed 

granted 35 days after public notice, a 

total of 65 days for processing. The 

Commission agrees with commenters 

that applications requiring coordination, 

including Federal coordination, require 

additional time. 

57. Initially, this expedited process is 

premised on the following conditions, 

which are necessary to balance faster 

processing for adding points of 

communication and protecting other 

spectrum users from interference. First, 

the Commission notes that Commission 

staff will retain discretion to remove the 

application from the deemed-granted 

process if merited. Additionally, the 

Commission requires that these 

modifications be limited in nature, and 

not part of a larger set of modifications, 

which might require more lengthy 

review. Therefore, the modification can 

be only to add space stations as points 

of communication. Next, applications 

will need to demonstrate that the 

addition of a new point of 

communication will not cause earth 

station transmissions to exceed the 

highest equivalent isotropically radiated 

power (EIRP), EIRP density, and 

bandwidth prescribed for any already 

authorized emission. Finally, this 

option will only be available in 

frequency bands that are not shared 

with Federal or terrestrial wireless users 

and are not subject to coordination 

requirements with other non-Federal 

satellite services. The Commission does, 

however, seek comment in the FNPRM 

regarding some additional 

circumstances in which an earth station 

modification to add a point of 

communication could be expedited. 

58. The Commission is not convinced, 

as some have suggested, that all 

applications for adding a point of 

communication are appropriate for 

notification-only consideration. The 

Commission observes that applications 

to add space stations as points of 

communication are only required for 

space stations that are not on the 

Permitted List, and for operations that 

fall outside ‘‘routine’’ earth station 

technical parameters. If a GSO space 

station is licensed by the Commission, 

or has been granted access to the U.S. 

market, and operates in specified 

frequency bands where GSO FSS has 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84748 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

primary status, then the space station is 

a Permitted List space station and is 

automatically included as a point of 

communication for all U.S.-licensed 

earth stations that list the Permitted List 

as a point of communication, provided 

that the earth station operations with 

the space station fall within the existing 

technical parameters and conditions of 

the earth station license. The Permitted 

List already represents the 

Commission’s judgment as to which 

space stations can be added as points of 

communications to an earth station’s 

license without requiring an application 

and approval by the Commission. 

Allowing the addition of any space 

station as a point of communication, 

without prior application or approval, 

in any orbit or service or frequency 

band, and without regard to whether the 

operations fall within existing technical 

parameters would essentially render the 

Permitted List meaningless, which is an 

outcome outside the scope of this 

proceeding to expedite the processing of 

space and earth station applications. 

The Permitted List is limited to GSO 

space stations providing fixed-satellite 

service, and the Commission has not so 

far determined that it is possible to 

include NGSO space stations within the 

definition of the Permitted List. In the 

accompanying FNPRM, however, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

commenter proposals to create a process 

for allowing U.S.-licensed earth stations 

to have automatic authority to 

communicate with certain approved 

NGSO space stations, in a manner 

similar to the how the Permitted List 

functions for approved GSO space 

stations. 

e. Other Suggestions 

59. The NPRM sought comment 

generally on the issues the Commission 

identified for streamlining and on other 

guidance that may assist applicants and 

speed application processing. In 

response to the Commission’s general 

questions, some commenters advocate 

for additional rule changes that they 

believe will reduce the need to file 

modification applications, but which 

are either outside of the scope of this 

proceeding or which the Commission 

declines to take action on at this time. 

Additionally, some of the comments 

and suggestions more appropriately 

align with other ongoing Commission 

proceedings and, as such, are not further 

considered in this document. Finally, 

several comments can be addressed by 

clarifying and explaining existing Space 

Bureau practices. The Commission 

values the input that it received in 

response to the NPRM, and the absence 

of action today or inclusion in the 

accompanying Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in no way 

precludes consideration of these ideas 

as part of other existing proceedings or 

as part of future rulemaking 

proceedings. 

64. Suggestions for Modifications 

without Prior Authorization. Spire 

proposes that the Commission adopt a 

new provision in § 25.118 for EESS 

spacecraft, permitting operators to 

notify the Commission of these set of 

changes. SpaceX suggests that the 

Commission expand Spire’s proposal to 

include all NGSO systems, not just 

EESS. The Commission declines to 

adopt Spire’s proposal at this time. 

While the Commission believes 

expanding notification-only 

modifications could have merit, the 

Commission remains concerned that 

this proposal in particular would leave 

important determinations, such as the 

evaluation of interference risk, solely to 

the applicant. The Commission notes 

that it is not creating a new requirement 

here, rather the Commission is declining 

to adopt a proposal to amend § 25.118 

to include certain additional changes to 

satellites. Commission rules on 

modifications remain the same. The 

Commission notes, however, that some 

satellite design changes may not require 

Commission review or notification at all 

if they create no change to radio 

frequency, do not affect orbital debris 

mitigation plans, or otherwise affect the 

parameters or terms and conditions of 

the station authorization. 

65. Spire additionally proposes that 

discrepancies related to whether an 

applicant can make a minor 

modification through notification or via 

prior authorization can be alleviated to 

some degree if the Commission codifies 

a broad definition of the term 

‘‘technically identical.’’ Spire proposes 

that ‘‘[t]he Commission should formally 

codify the explanation it provided in the 

1994 MSS Order that ‘technically 

identical’ spacecraft are those that have 

‘identical satellite antenna footprints 

and transmission parameters’ but which 

may have de minimis variation among 

them—including the physical structure 

or microelectronics.’’ Additionally, 

Spire suggests that the Commission 

should expressly exempt ‘‘technically 

identical’’ components from 

modification rules. The Commission 

declines to adopt a specific definition of 

‘‘technically identical’’ in the rules at 

this time because such a definition may 

become outdated as technology 

advances. The Commission aims to 

amend its rules in technologicallyneutral and performance-based ways, 

and in light of this framework the 

Commission finds it inappropriate to 

adopt such a definition in the rules 

based on the current record. 

66. Suggested Changes to the Space 

Bureau’s Special Temporary Authority 

Process. Several commenters suggest 

various approaches to further streamline 

the license application process for 

STAs. SpaceX proposes, and other 

commenters agree, that STAs with an 

underlying request for full authorization 

should renew automatically while the 

underlying application is pending. RBC 

Signals suggests that the Space Bureau 

adopt a procedure which allows STA 

operations to continue while a license 

application with identical parameters to 

the STA is under review. And Intelsat 

suggests that the Commission ‘‘adopt 

the [§ ] 1.62 policies previously 

employed’’ for Earth station 

applications ‘‘wherein operators were 

not required to file a new STA extension 

request prior to the grant of the previous 

STA extension request.’’ 

67. Here the Commission finds that an 

explanation of the Space Bureau’s STA 

process is merited when considering 

these comments. Commission rules for 

special temporary authorizations under 

part 25 allow operators to apply for 

STAs for various amounts of time, and 

state that STAs expire at the end of 

those allotted terms. These rules stem 

from the Communications Act, which 

allows the Commission to grant STAs 

for up to 180 days if they are placed on 

public notice per section 309(f) of the 

Act, and allows the Commission to grant 

up to 30 and 60-day STAs in certain 

circumstances without public notice per 

section 309(c)(2)(G) of the Act. The 

reasoning behind these rules is simple: 

special temporary authorizations are 

meant to be used under exceptional or 

‘‘extraordinary’’ circumstances, as the 

Act states and as Commission 

rulemakings have emphasized. The 

Space Bureau has applied § 1.62 to 

special temporary authorizations in that 

if an applicant with an STA files a new 

STA application to extend its temporary 

authorization three days prior to the end 

of its current license term, it may 

continue its temporary operations while 

the new STA application is pending. As 

such, an operator with an STA may 

continue its temporary operations while 

a new application to extend the time 

period for their authorization is under 

review and the Commission 

acknowledges this in its license grants. 

The Commission notes that the rules 

allow for STAs for up to 180 days at a 

time. Despite this, many applicants still 

file shorter-term STA applications for 

up to 30 days, which the Commission 

can issue without placing on public 

notice, or 60-day durations, which the 

Commission has the discretion to not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84749 

place on public notice if the applicant 

plans to file an underlying request for 

regular authority of the service. 

Additionally, because requests for 

special temporary authority are meant to 

be granted under exceptional 

circumstances and for relatively short 

duration, any coordination that is 

needed for the temporary authorization 

is generally limited to the time period 

requested by the applicant, or no more 

than up to 180 days. Additional requests 

then require additional coordination for 

the new time period. 

68. For all these reasons, the 

Commission declines to adopt the 

suggested changes to the STA rules at 

this time. The Commission recognizes 

that STA applications are often 

accompanied by an underlying license 

or modification application for regular 

operations, and it can be difficult for 

applicants to determine the full 

timeframe for which they might require 

special temporary authorization. 

However, the Commission notes that 

applicants may consider a variety of 

time frames for their STA needs, 

including the 180-day STA. The 

Commission also notes that it does not 

wish to circumvent the 180-day STA 

requirements, which is distinguished by 

the 30 and 60-day STAs only in so far 

that the Act requires the Commission to 

place applications for STAs beyond 60 

days and up to 180 days on public 

notice. Therefore, the Commission has 

discretion to place 30 and 60-day STA 

applications on public notice, and may 

choose to do so in the event an 

individual applicant files numerous 

shorter-term STA requests that result in 

longer than a 180-day use. Ultimately, 

the Commission is hopeful that the 

Commission’s continued streamlining 

efforts will lead to faster processing of 

underlying applications and a reduction 

in the need for extensions to STAs. 

69. Additional Suggestions for 

Streamlining of Modifications. SpaceX 

suggests that the Commission should 

permit and encourage operators to 

submit a single modification application 

that applies an identical change across 

multiple Earth station licenses. SpaceX 

proposes, as part of its suggestion, that 

for any modification that would require 

re-coordination with other commercial 

or Federal users, ‘‘the Commission 

could require the modification 

application to attach coordination 

information for each separate site.’’ 

TechFreedom suggests ‘‘a hybrid 

licensing approach under which the 

common elements (technical 

parameters, points of communications, 

etc.) of a network of earth stations could 

be licensed on a network basis under a 

single license with only the individual 

elements (e.g., location) licensed 

separately.’’ Both SpaceX and 

TechFreedom assert that these types of 

changes would dramatically cut down 

on the amount of modification 

applications that would require filing 

and review. 

70. The Commission is conscious of 

commenters’ points regarding large 

numbers of modification applications 

being filed for common changes, and 

will consider this issue for future 

updates to the filing system, which 

currently cannot support this 

modification. In response to 

TechFreedom’s suggestion, the 

Commission notes that it has made 

similar efforts to streamline common 

changes, such as through C-band earth 

station network licensing in 

§ 25.115(c)(2) of Commission rules and 

the unified licensing system for space 

stations and blanket earth stations 

adopted in 2020. In the 2020 order 

creating the unified licensing system, 

the Commission declined to include 

individually licensed earth stations in 

the process, finding that adding them 

would ‘‘create more complexity than its 

streamlining benefit,’’ given the need for 

site-specific information and 

coordination. This reasoning remains 

valid. However, the Commission may 

consider similar suggestions such as 

TechFreedom’s ‘‘hybrid licensing’’ 

approach as the Commission gains more 

experience with some of the 

streamlining rules the Commission has 

more recently put in place, such as the 

unified licensing system, that have not 

yet been widely utilized. The 

Commission may consider further 

streamlining in a future proceeding. 

71. Emission Designators. Intelsat and 

SIA both suggest that the Commission 

do away with requiring emission 

designators in earth station applications. 

SIA asserts that requiring applicants to 

include emission designators causes 

confusion, delay, and complexity to the 

application process ‘‘without providing 

any meaningful information.’’ The 

Commission declines to consider 

changes to the emission designator 

requirements. Emission designators 

provide a variety of necessary 

information to inform the licensing 

process and to make a determination to 

authorize an operation under Part 25. 

For example, they provide technical 

information that Commission staff use 

to verify and calculate the power 

spectral density, occupied bandwidth, 

whether transmissions are analog or 

digital, etc. Additionally, this 

information is typically requested as 

part of the Federal coordination process 

with NTIA. The Commission also notes 

that emission designators are required 

by OET in their license applications as 

well for similar reasons. 

72. Market Access and Orbital Debris 

Mitigation Showings. In response to the 

NPRM, a few commenters suggest that 

the Commission ensure market access 

operators and U.S. licensees are subject 

to the same rules, in particular they 

suggest the Commission amend its rules 

related to orbital debris showings. 

TechFreedom asserts that applicants for 

market access are treated more favorably 

than U.S. licensees in part because 

‘‘domestic applications are vetted at the 

acceptance stage to determine whether 

their orbital debris showings are 

sufficient, whereas such showings in 

market access petitions are not reviewed 

until a later stage.’’ Conversely, OneWeb 

notes that market access applicants are 

effectively required to provide the same 

orbital debris showings as license 

applicants, but because this is often 

done through requests for information 

from Commission staff, OneWeb asserts 

the determination process is delayed as 

compared with the process for U.S. 

licensees. 

73. As an initial matter, the 

Commission notes that 

§ 25.114(d)(14)(v) of the Commission’s 

rules, which addresses orbital debris 

showings for market access grantees, is 

the subject of a pending petition for 

reconsideration filed by SpaceX for the 

same reasons raised by SpaceX in this 

proceeding. Therefore, the Commission 

will consider any changes to that rule in 

the other proceeding. However, the 

Commission takes this opportunity to 

emphasize that the Commission applies 

the same scrutiny to orbital debris 

showings for market access grantees and 

U.S.-licensees, and ultimately 

determines whether to grant market 

access based on the same technical 

information that a U.S.-licensee would 

provide for orbital debris 

considerations. The Commission’s 

current rules allow market access 

applicants to satisfy the requirement to 

describe the design and operational 

strategies to minimize orbital debris risk 

by demonstrating that their debris 

mitigation plans are subject to direct 

and effective regulatory oversight by the 

national authority that licensed their 

space station operations. Such a 

showing requires market access 

applicants to provide supporting 

documentation and respond to inquiries 

from Commission staff in order for the 

staff to compare the foreign rules and 

determine whether there is an effective 

regulatory regime in place. This 

includes submitting an English language 

version of the debris mitigation rules or 

regulations of the authority and 

indicating the current status of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84750 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

national licensing authority’s review. 

However, while this provision allows 

the Commission to accept such 

equivalent regulatory oversight 

showings, it does not preclude 

applicants from alternatively providing 

the same orbital debris mitigation 

showings that are detailed elsewhere in 

§ 25.114 of the rules. And, except for a 

few cases, applicants have generally 

found it preferable to just provide the 

Commission with a description of the 

design and operational strategies for 

orbital debris mitigation instead of 

presenting all of the showings necessary 

to demonstrate the effective regulatory 

oversight of another national authority. 

74. UMFUS Pre-Application 

Coordination. Verizon/AT&T assert in 

their comments that the Commission 

could streamline the license application 

process by requiring earth station 

operators in bands shared with the 

Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 

(UMFUS) to engage in additional preapplication coordination and certify 

conformance with § 25.136 of the 

Commission’s rules and Space Bureau 

guidance in addition to the Part 101 

coordination requirements. 

Additionally, they suggest that the 

Commission require earth station 

operators to provide more than visual 

information about proposed earth 

station contours, including the antenna 

gain at the horizon or the maximum 

equivalent isotropically radiated power 

at the horizon to validate how the 

contours were developed. OneWeb, 

Viasat, Intelsat, and EchoStar disagree 

with this proposal. The Commission 

agrees with commenters’ assertions that 

these proposals fall outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. Similarly, the 

Commission finds that Viasat’s proposal 

to amend the review process under 

§ 25.136 is also beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. The Commission agrees 

that operators must fully engage in the 

coordination process identified for 

specific applications, but does not 

believe this proceeding, which focuses 

on expediting the license application 

process, is the pertinent forum for 

considering additions to pre-application 

coordination requirements. 

75. Redefining NGSO systems and 

EESS Licensing. Spire suggests that the 

Commission consider expanding and 

altering its NGSO licensing framework 

beyond the streamlined procedure carve 

out for small satellites in § 25.122. The 

Commission notes that Spire’s 

suggestions, which concern the overall 

licensing framework, operator 

definitions, and NGSO processing 

rounds, are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. Similarly, Spire’s proposals 

related to amending the U.S. Table of 

Frequency Allocations for space-tospace transmissions in the S-Band and 

considering other frequencies for 

intersatellite links is beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking. The Commission 

may consider these suggestions when 

contemplating future rulemaking 

proceedings. 

76. Other Ongoing Commission 

Proceedings. Several other commenters 

raise issues that are beyond the scope of 

this proceeding but may be more 

appropriate for consideration in other 

ongoing Commission proceedings. For 

example, Kuiper suggests that the 

Commission can streamline its licensing 

procedures in part by finishing its 

rulemaking to revise § 25.261 of the 

Commission’s rules. SpaceX asserts 

these issues are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. We agree and we note that 

the Commission adopted new rules for 

satellite system spectrum sharing and 

issued a further notice of proposed 

rulemaking on April 20, 2023. Turion 

Space proposes that In-space Servicing, 

Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) 

operations should be authorized by 

service category and the Commission 

should develop a new framework for 

space stations that deploy third-party 

payloads. The Commission has issued a 

Notice of Inquiry on ISAM operations 

and proposals related to these novel 

operations are more appropriate for 

consideration in that proceeding and are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Myriota’s suggestions related to Spaceas-a-service (SaaS) and licensing 

antennas hosted at third-party facilities 

are also beyond the scope of this 

proceeding, however the Commission 

notes that similar suggestions have been 

raised in response to the Commission’s 

ISAM NOI. 

77. Station-keeping Requirements. 

Intelsat suggests that the number of 

modification and STA requests could be 

cut down by revising § 25.210(j) of the 

Commissions’ rules to permit 

maintaining GSO satellites within 0.1° 

of their assigned orbital longitude, 

which is consistent with the ITU’s eastwest station-keeping requirements as 

opposed to the Commission’s current 

rules, which require maintaining 

satellites within 0.05° of their assigned 

orbital longitude. Intelsat suggests that 

this change would give operators 

increased flexibility for conducting fleet 

management maneuvers and obviate the 

need for requests for modifications or 

STAs in that situation. This suggestion 

falls outside the scope of this 

proceeding, which is focused on 

expediting the application process and 

not a review of all of the Commission’s 

technical rules. Nonetheless, the 

Commission notes that it has amended 

the rule in the past to allow exceptions 

for end-of-life operations, and has 

considered waiver requests to this rule 

for applicants in the past. The 

Commission believes its current rules 

and practice are prudent, while 

allowing operators to apply for a waiver 

if needed under unique conditions. 

78. Bureau Practices. Several 

commenters raise issues that can be 

clarified by pointing commenters to 

current Space Bureau practices, 

procedures, and policies. One 

commenter suggests that the 

Commission waive, for good cause, 

NGSO-like processing rules for EESS 

operators. This type of waiver has been 

granted where justified given the nature 

of EESS operations and the ability for 

operators to share spectrum. Similarly, 

requests for email notification when 

licenses are granted and contact 

information for Bureau staff are already 

a part of Space Bureau practice. 

However, the Commission notes that 

FCC emails are sent to the designated 

point of contact on applications and, the 

Commission reminds applicants to 

notify the Commission of any updates to 

their designated point of contact details. 

79. Timing of Orbital Debris 

Showings. The Swedish Space 

Corporation asserts that the Commission 

should allow applicants to address 

space debris mitigation plans and 

deorbiting strategy after a license is 

granted because these matters require 

obtaining data from manufacturers and 

may cause delay before licensing. The 

commenter could raise this in the 

Commission’s Orbital Debris Mitigation 

proceeding. While orbital debris 

assessments are a key component in 

determining whether to grant a license 

or market access, in some instances the 

Commission has authorized licenses on 

the condition that the applicant must 

submit its orbital debris plan through a 

modification and meet the requirements 

in the Commission’s rules prior to 

commencing operations. 

80. License Conditions. A number of 

commenters raise suggestions and 

observations about the Commission’s 

practices related to license conditions. 

Commenters suggest, for example, that 

the Commission could cut down on the 

license processing time by also limiting 

the number of conditions applied to 

each license. TechFreedom suggests this 

could be achieved in part by adding a 

new rule to part 25 ‘‘making clear that 

all licenses are issued subject to any 

rule changes later adopted.’’ Similarly, 

Intelsat asserts that current license 

grants are more lengthy than needed 

due to restatements of various of FCC 

rule requirements. SpaceX asserts that 

the Commission should avoid imposing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84751 

any conditions that conflict with 

§ 25.118. SpaceX also asserts that the 

Commission has inconsistently applied 

conditions to similarly situated 

applicants in the past and suggests that 

the Commission should adopt 

‘‘consistent conditions—ideally with 

identical language—that reduce the 

incentive for operators to claim 

heightened conditions for their 

competitors and reduce the need for 

operators to contest their competitors’ 

applications to ensure equitable 

treatment.’’ 

81. The Commission finds these 

comments to be outside the scope of the 

queries on expediting application 

processing, and rather directly concern 

the specifics of license operations. 

However, the Commission recognizes 

that authorization conditions do at 

times include restatements of 

Commission rules. As commenters point 

out, all operators are subject to the rules 

in part 25, unless granted a waiver of a 

specific rule section. Additionally, it is 

already well established that licenses 

are subject to changes in rules that are 

the result of Commission rulemaking 

proceedings. Nonetheless, the Space 

Bureau may consider these suggestions 

when crafting future license conditions. 

Regarding SpaceX’s suggestion, the 

Commission notes that certain 

conditions may apply generally, for 

example if applications are requesting a 

particular frequency or waiver of a 

particular section of Commission rules. 

In such instances, effort is made to have 

standardized conditions that are placed 

in license grants where possible, and the 

Commission expects the Space Bureau 

will continue to review license 

conditions accordingly. Beyond that, 

however, the Commission notes that 

each application presents 

individualized circumstances and 

operations, and conditions will reflect 

those differences. For example, the 

conditions placed on an applicant 

requesting to launch and operate one 

NGSO satellite will be different from an 

applicant requesting to launch and 

operate a fleet of satellites. In turn, the 

number of satellites, the size and 

location of the fleet, and other factors 

will all play a role in what conditions 

are placed on an operator. 

82. Experimental Licensing. Turion 

Space suggests that the Commission’s 

experimental licensing rules under part 

5 of Commission rules should be 

updated and that the Space Bureau, not 

OET, should administer the 

experimental licenses. OET has 

delegated authority to administer 

experimental licenses under part 5, in 

coordination with the Space Bureau 

when necessary. The Commission notes 

that part 5 rules cover all manner of 

experimental licenses and OET has the 

delegated authority and expertise 

related to experimental licenses 

generally. When OET receives 

experimental license applications for 

satellite operations, OET and the Space 

Bureau coordinate given the Bureau’s 

subject-matter expertise on satellite 

operations. 

83. Physical Characteristics of 

Spacecraft. SpaceX suggests that the 

Commission should cease requiring 

operators to provide specific 

dimensions for satellites, claiming 

requests for such information is 

inconsistent with Commission rules and 

policy. The Commission disagrees with 

SpaceX’s interpretation of Commission 

rules and policy. In a past licensing 

streamlining proceeding the 

Commission deleted a specific 

requirement in § 25.114(c)(10) requiring 

space station applications to provide, 

among other things, specific dimensions 

and mass because the Commission 

found that the information was either 

collected elsewhere or was unnecessary. 

In the case of specific dimensions, this 

information is often pertinent to the 

design and operational strategy that 

operators submit to demonstrate 

compliance with orbital debris 

mitigation under § 25.114(d)(14). 

Although the Commission removed the 

blanket requirement under 

§ 25.114(c)(10) in 2013, the Commission 

retains authority under § 25.114(d)(14) 

to ensure that applicants submit 

sufficient showings to ensure 

compliance with orbital debris 

mitigation requirements concerns and 

therefore may request or expect 

operators to provide such information in 

individual cases. 

84. Public Participation in the 

Application Process, Informal 

Complaints, and Commission Discretion 

on Considering Comments. 

TechFreedom and SpaceX suggest that 

the Commission can further streamline 

the application process by dismissing 

any late-filed informal complaints 

related to an application. Additionally, 

TechFreedom suggests that the 

Commission hold informal complaints 

to the standards set forth in § 1.41 of the 

Commission’s rules. Both commenters 

suggest that the informal complaint 

procedure has been used to frustrate and 

slow down application processing. 

85. As commenters suggest, the 

Commission’s rules offer multiple 

avenues for public participation related 

to Commission licensing actions: for 

example, through filing objections or 

petitions to deny under § 25.154(a), 

through informal objections under 

§ 25.154(b), as well as other avenues 

such as § 1.1307 (actions that may have 

a significant environmental effect, for 

which Environmental Assessments 

(EAs) must be prepared). Formal 

pleadings, such as petitions to deny, 

must generally be made within the 30- 

day public comment period, however, 

the Commission has authority to extend 

the opportunity for public comment. 

Under FCC rules, pleadings that are not 

filed in accordance with § 25.154(a), 

including those not meeting the 30-day 

deadline, are classified as informal 

objections under subsection (b). The 

Commission recognizes that allowing 

informal objections that are not subject 

to the 30-day public notice timeframe 

may slow down the pace of application 

processing in some instances, especially 

when a significant number of comments 

are generated due to an application for 

innovative services and novel 

operations. However, allowing public 

comment under the Commission’s 

existing processes and rules benefits the 

review process, especially when 

comments are well thought out, and 

factually supported. TechFreedom cites 

to NetworkIP, LLC v. Federal 

Communications Commission, 548 F.3d 

116 (D.C. Cir., 2008) and proposes that 

the Commission should extend the 

court’s reasoning in that case ‘‘to the 

informal complaint procedures for 

satellite applications’’ and hold ‘‘all 

parties to strict filing deadlines’’. The 

Commission finds the court’s decision 

in NetworkIP to be inapposite. In that 

case, the court found that the FCC’s 

failure to apply its six-month filing 

deadline by granting a waiver was 

arbitrary and capricious. 548 F.3d at 

128. Unlike the situation in NetworkIP, 

here, by accepting a filing after the 30- 

day period and classifying it as an 

informal objection, the Commission is 

complying with its rules, not waiving 

them. The Commission believes the 

benefit of robust debate and input as 

part of the record outweighs the 

concerns about delay, and therefore 

decline to change the informal objection 

process. However, in those cases where 

parties file frivolous pleadings, or 

pleadings meant solely to delay the 

process, the Commission reminds them 

that such filings are prohibited under 

§ 1.52 of the Commission’s rules. 

f. Digital Equity and Inclusion 

60. In the NPRM, the Commission 

noted its continuing efforts to advance 

digital equity for all, consistent with the 

Communications Act and with 

Executive Order 13985. Specifically, the 

Commission asked how its streamlining 

proposals may promote or inhibit 

advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, 

and accessibility, as well as the scope of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84752 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

the Commission’s relevant legal 

authority. Both SIA and EchoStar assert 

that efforts to expedite the licensing 

process will advance digital equity. 

EchoStar notes that a simpler, more 

efficient application process supports 

the Commission’s digital equity and 

inclusion goals and will make it easier 

for satellite operators to offer services 

and lower costs to users across the 

country, including members of 

historically disadvantaged groups. 

Additionally, EchoStar notes that a 

streamlined process makes it more 

likely that a wide range of applicants 

will be able to participate in space 

business. SIA similarly emphasizes the 

effect of satellite broadband services in 

closing the digital divide for rural 

communities in particular and 

highlights the important role that 

satellite remote sensing services can 

play in natural and cultural resource 

management on Tribal lands. SIA also 

urges the Commission to ‘‘continue to 

adopt rules that remain neutral with 

respect to the business models of the 

satellite systems that the Commission 

authorizes . . . [which] will ensure that 

the benefits of broadband satellite 

services will continue to be available to 

all end user groups, including 

underserved consumers, and the 

business, industries, and government 

infrastructure that support them and 

their communities.’’ 

61. The Commission agrees with 

commenters that its efforts to expedite 

the application process and increase 

transparency for applicants will aid in 

lowering barriers to new entrants into 

the satellite communications industry. 

The Commission also agrees that 

supporting efforts to increase 

connectivity to historically underserved 

communities is in line with the 

Commission’s mandate under the 

Communications Act and Commission 

efforts to comply with Executive Order 

13985. With this in mind, the actions 

the Commission takes today to increase 

transparency and guidance for 

applicants are aimed at increasing 

accessibility, supporting innovation, 

and furthering the Commission’s goal of 

increasing connectivity for all. 

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

62. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 

amended, an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 

incorporated in the Expediting Initial 

Processing of Satellite and Earth Station 

Applications Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) released in 

December 2022. The Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 

including comment on the IRFA. No 

comments were filed addressing the 

IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

a. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final 

Rule 

63. In recent years, the Commission 

has received an unprecedented number 

of applications for earth and space 

station licenses. The final rule facilitates 

and expedites the acceptance for filing 

of satellite and earth station 

applications under 47 CFR part 25 and 

adopts other streamlining measure to 

keep pace with growing demand for 

satellite services and innovative satellite 

operations. This rulemaking continues 

to and will promote competition and 

innovation among satellite and earth 

station operators, including the market 

entry of new competitors by removing 

barriers to applying for licenses. 

64. This document changes to 

Commission rules aimed at reducing 

barriers and burdens on satellite 

operators. Specifically, the document 

removes and reserves § 25.112(a)(3) thus 

allowing operators to seek a waiver for 

operations not in conformance with the 

international table of allocations. 

Additionally, the document removes the 

prohibition on licensed-but-unbuilt 

systems for NGSO operators by 

amending §§ 25.159(b) and 25.137(d)(5), 

and creates a new, streamlined 

processing framework for earth station 

operators to add satellite points of 

communication under certain 

circumstances. Finally, the document 

lays the groundwork for a broader 

transparency initiative led by the Space 

Bureau to provide clarity and access to 

applicants when interfacing with the 

Commission’s license application 

processes and filing system. 

b. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

65. There were no comments filed 

that specifically addressed the proposed 

rules and policies presented in the 

IRFA. 

c. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business 

66. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is 

required to respond to any comments 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

filed in this proceeding, and to provide 

a detailed statement of any change made 

to the proposed rules as a result of those 

comments. The Chief Counsel did not 

file any comments in response to the 

proposed rules or policies in this 

proceeding. 

d. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

67. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of, the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules adopted herein. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one which: (1) is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

68. Below, the Commission describes 

and estimate the number of small 

entities that may be affected by the 

adoption of the final rules. 

69. Satellite Telecommunications. 

This industry comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Satellite 

telecommunications service providers 

include satellite and earth station 

operators. The SBA small business size 

standard for this industry classifies a 

business with $38.5 million or less in 

annual receipts as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 

firms in this industry operated for the 

entire year. Of this number, 242 firms 

had revenue of less than $25 million. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2022 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2021, there were 65 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of satellite 

telecommunications services. Of these 

providers, the Commission estimates 

that approximately 42 providers have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, using the SBA’s small 

business size standard, a little more 

than half of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84753 

e. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

70. The final rule amends rules that 

are applicable to earth and space station 

operators requesting a license or 

authorization from the Commission, or 

entities requesting that the Commission 

grant a request for U.S. market access. 

The changes adopted in the final rule, 

as described below, will decrease the 

burden for small entities and other 

business operators. Specifically, this 

final rule eliminates the rule requiring 

automatic dismissal of applications 

requesting operations not in 

conformance with the international 

table of allocations, eliminates the 

NGSO unbuilt systems rule, and creates 

an expedited licensing process for 

certain earth station operators to add 

points of communication. Further, in 

light of these limited changes and rule 

reductions, the Commission does not 

believe that small entities will have to 

hire professionals to comply with the 

final rule. 

f. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities and Alternatives Considered 

71. The RFA requires an agency to 

provide, ‘‘a description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities . . . including a statement of 

the factual, policy, and legal reasons for 

selecting the alternative adopted in the 

final rule and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

72. The final rule amends the 

Commission’s rules governing 

acceptability for filing by removing and 

reserving § 25.112(a)(3), which led to 

automatic dismissals of applications 

that proposed frequency operations not 

in conformance with the international 

table of frequency allocations. By 

removing this barrier, applicants may 

now apply for a waiver of the 

international table, just as operators 

applying under the small satellite or 

small spacecraft streamlined procedures 

have been able to do and just as all 

operators have been able to apply for 

waivers of the U.S. table of frequency 

allocations. 

73. As an alternative, the Commission 

could have left 25.112(a)(3) in place. 

This would have potentially created a 

barrier to innovative uses of spectrum 

and stifled the development of the 

industry, including for small entities. 

The Commission allowed waivers of the 

international table of frequency 

allocations for small satellites and small 

spacecraft through its streamlined 

rulemaking processes, found at 

§§ 25.122 and 25.123 respectively. 

However, small entities as defined for 

purposes of the RFA do not always align 

with the requirements to apply for a 

license under the small satellite or small 

spacecraft streamlined process. By 

removing 25.112(a)(3), all applicants 

may now seek a waiver for 

nonconforming use instead of risking 

automatic dismissal of an application 

that required time and resources to file. 

74. In addition, the final rule removes 

the prohibition on applicants from 

applying for an additional NGSO-like 

satellite system license in a particular 

frequency band if that party already had 

a licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like 

satellite system in the band. By 

removing this prohibition the 

Commission eliminates an additional 

barrier to applicants in moving forward 

with their satellite operations while 

maintaining safeguards against 

speculative license applications through 

the Commission’s bond and milestone 

requirements. 

75. As an alternative, the Commission 

could have allowed applicants to seek 

waivers of the prohibition on a case-bycase basis. This alternative would have 

been more costly to small entities, 

requiring additional resources to craft a 

request for waiver as part of their 

application or to engage with outside 

counsel to assist with crafting the 

waiver request. Leaving the rule as is 

would have potentially created a barrier 

to small entities to apply for a license 

and expand their operations. 

76. The final rule creates a new, 

streamlined review process under 

§ 25.117 (Modification of station 

licenses) for earth station operators to 

add points of communication under 

specific circumstances. The 

Commission identified a set of 

circumstances under which the review 

process can be expedited and 

applications for this modification can be 

deemed granted 35 days after being 

placed on public notice. This new 

process will allow applicants to add 

points of communication to their 

operations at a quicker pace, thus 

creating an economic benefit to 

operators as well as a benefit to the 

public who will be able to access the 

services being provided sooner. 

g. Report to Congress 

77. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Report and Order, including this 

FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. In addition, the Commission will 

send a copy of the Report and Order, 

including this FRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A 

copy of the Report and Order and FRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

78. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 

4(i), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, and 

332 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 

301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 332, that this 

Report and Order is adopted, the 

policies, rules, and requirements 

discussed herein are adopted, Part 25 of 

the Commission’s rules is amended as 

set forth in Appendix A. 

79. It is further ordered that Part 25 

of the Commission’s Rules is amended 

as set forth in Appendix A and such 

rule amendments will become effective 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

80. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Secretary, shall send a copy of 

this Report and Order, including the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration, in 

accordance with Section 603(a) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq. 

81. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Managing Director, Performance 

Program Management, shall send a copy 

of this Report and Order in a report to 

be sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Satellites. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 as 

follows: 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 

307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 25.112 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (a)(3) and revising 

paragraph (b) introductory text. 

The revision reads as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
84754 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 25.112 Dismissal and return of 

applications. 

* * * * * 

(b) Applications for space station 

authority found defective under 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section will not 

be considered. Applications for 

authority found defective under 

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section 

may be accepted for filing if: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 25.117 by adding 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 25.117 Modification of station license. 

* * * * * 

(i) Unless otherwise ordered by the 

Commission, an application to add a 

space station point of communication to 

an earth station authorization will be 

deemed granted 35 days after the date 

of the public notice that the application 

has been accepted for filing, provided: 

(1) The license modification is only to 

add one or more points of 

communication; 

(2) The modification will not cause 

the earth station transmissions to exceed 

the highest EIRP, EIRP density, and 

bandwidth prescribed for any already 

authorized emission; and 

(3) The new space station point of 

communication will operate with the 

earth station only in frequency bands 

that are not shared with Federal or 

terrestrial wireless users and are not 

subject to coordination requirements 

with other non-Federal satellite 

services. 

■ 4. Amend § 25.137 by revising 

paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 25.137 Requests for U.S. market access 

through non-U.S.-licensed space stations. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) Entities that have one market 

access request on file with the 

Commission for NGSO-like satellite 

operations in a particular frequency 

band will not be permitted to request 

access to the U.S. market for another 

NGSO-like satellite system in that 

frequency band in the same processing 

round subject to the procedures of 

§§ 25.157 and 25.261. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 25.159 by revising 

paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 25.159 Limits on pending applications 

and unbuilt satellite systems. 

* * * * * 

(b) Applicants with an application for 

one NGSO-like satellite system license 

on file with the Commission in a 

particular frequency band will not be 

permitted to apply for another NGSOlike satellite system license in that 

frequency band in the same processing 

round subject to the procedures of 

§§ 25.157 and 25.261. 

(c) If an applicant has an attributable 

interest in one or more other entities 

seeking one or more space station 

licenses or grants of U.S. market access, 

the pending applications and licensedbut-unbuilt satellite systems filed by 

those other entities will be counted as 

filed by the applicant for purposes of 

the limits on the number of pending 

space station applications or requests 

for U.S. market access and licensed-butunbuilt satellite systems in this section 

and in § 25.137(d)(5). For purposes of 

this section, an applicant has an 

‘‘attributable interest’’ in another entity 

if: 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–26699 Filed 12–5–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 231129–0281; RTID 0648– 

XC365] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands; Revised Final 2023 

and 2024 Harvest Specifications for 

Groundfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; closures. 

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes revisions to 

the final 2023 and 2024 harvest 

specifications for the 2024 groundfish 

fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands management area (BSAI) that are 

required by the final rule implementing 

Amendment 122 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (FMP). This action is 

necessary to revise the 2024 trawl 

catcher vessel sector’s Pacific cod 

allocation of the total allowable catch 

and associated halibut and crab 

prohibited species catch (PSC) limits in 

the BSAI. The intended effect of this 

action is to conserve and manage the 

groundfish resources in the BSAI in 

accordance with the FMP and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: The final 2023 and 2024 harvest 

specifications for 2024 and associated 

apportionment of reserves are effective 

at 0001 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), 

January 1, 2024, until the effective date 

of the final 2024 and 2025 harvest 

specifications for BSAI groundfish, 

which are anticipated to be published in 

the Federal Register in early 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Final Alaska Groundfish Harvest 

Specifications Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), Record of Decision 

(ROD), the annual Supplementary 

Information Reports (SIRs) to the EIS, 

and the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) prepared for the final 

2023 and 2024 harvest specifications are 

available from the NMFS Alaska Region 

website at https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/region/alaska. The 2022 Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

(SAFE) report for the groundfish 

resources of the BSAI, dated November 

2022, and SAFE reports for previous 

years are available from the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) at 1007 West Third Avenue, 

Suite 400, Anchorage, AK 99501, phone 

907–271–2809, or from the Council’s 

website at https://www.npfmc.org. 

Electronic copies of the Environmental 

Assessment (EA), the Regulatory Impact 

Review, the Social Impact Analysis, and 

the Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) prepared for Amendment 122 

to the FMP and the implementing rule 

may be obtained from https://

www.regulations.gov in docket number 

NOAA–NMFS–2022–0072 or from the 

NMFS Alaska Region website at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal 

regulations at 50 CFR part 679 

implement the FMP and govern the 

groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The 

Council prepared the FMP, and NMFS 

approved it, under the MagnusonStevens Act. General regulations 

governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 

50 CFR part 600. 

Amendment 122 and the Pacific Cod 

Trawl Cooperative (PCTC) Program 

On August 8, 2023, NMFS published 

a final rule to implement Amendment 

122 to the FMP (Amendment 122), 

which establishes a limited access 

privilege program to harvest Pacific cod 

in the BSAI trawl catcher vessel (CV) 

sector (the PCTC Program). The PCTC 

Program allocates Pacific cod quota 

share to qualifying groundfish License 

Limitation Program license holders and 

qualifying processors and requires 

participants to form cooperatives to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1